Seu p tends 
ee 
ss 


+ 
ee 


Vitdneddadenee 


OF) Pe ee eee eer ee “~ 
ws yey vw ites eeu be 
an yh Oe duh eda 


— * — mre atey eer 
% pres 
Ns ane reed coher ene ae 
= 


Lana 
* ve +ehe 


has 


**. 


tee moe 
Anne 


7 Ape enne nae 
tdahae dt tana nee, 
than cedeeed 


Cou eee 


~ 


vy er MOS PON Eh. 
PON EE CVO ietheecalee boos 


~ 
v . 


tht te tet 
2e Rew eds eee 

+ Vey wy 

eed enees eeeh years 
Vie meywee ey eeoenhe 
x< 


Akane 


+ 


LAD Apeaatedtadeee tae outaee 
iserceTehietee 


aera 
~ 7 nate Reet 


woevesrty ters 


Lenke 


anne 


rn tr er ee ty rerrrys 


oh A ae 
ach path tahene teak yak eaeak nih aan 


RAO One ARR ARA. Geouaut 


Ce ree ees 


AR ARNE AAARARA MM | Re me 


Seog 
use deer 
AND Ae tt rane ehh em yah te 
Ae the Am bhat OO ee eh ete D to 


ANA HD tt AAane ht ahne ner ameenanan sarmrn ee 
peerees 


Soe es At Ne ke am 
AOR AAO mn ee 


i rererer ers AORN wt ho 
ALARA AAR AAS AAO ODMENA Reman Arran te As 
AANE ARNON SAAN At eh Em Dae toa ns 


a 


An nn nan Re ARAN AM NINE roo 


ANARAA AR ee 


Om nnne © 


Ansmann athe, 
SAAR dah A mon eee a reywyey 


AASANAA AS 


AR AAA a An nN 
AA Ae mh hah yA age A 


o 


Am Ape 
ANAPARAORANCRARA ROAD bor ot A Aes mackie 


euteunae ee LOTT rere 
eee Nh Ne A A Amen bee oom 


ETT eN tt evs Deere SuL el enyere toc} 
LPT PE STCED ONES weparee 


Reeepeoereey. 
Ab AS enh amd 


ere 
SS 


EN Y Ye Y ewe Sec eye 


te ite 


yesew 
yee eK ee 


ores = 
mm oh Anne aaa ame 


— 


Vyeey ree Pe. 


ae hn tann anes, 
Serre 


A Ao 
AAR 


mA tnee nt nee 


Nees ye 


rr rerere ry ys 


+aAananlann 
bh ah eee A cohen mma 


A a 
opeeywcereoereee mb Am 


er eer ee rerrerre: 
AADRPARAAA REA en a Rha Rae Lae 
peer yer: ts ees 





we S wy eee 
waew bese 


Af AAA ++ Ae aS teen 
bannons oat iabhs 
Sooo 


Wwe Theolon; 


PRINCETON, N. J. 


BV 811 .M69 1883a 

Mozley, J..B. 1813-1878. 

A review of the baptismal 
controversy 


11) ae RE en Number 





; ; * 7 é r ia 
wh a ee Ty ah ; anes 
* ; oo: sue ka ae 
} 7 ¢ Y ‘Ache 








REVIEW 


OF THE 


BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY 


BY 


J. B.“MOZLEY, D.D. 


LATE CANON OF CHERIST CHURCH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY 
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 


SECOND EDITION 


Nely Pork 
EK. 2 BpULTron- AND co. 
PUBLISHERS BOOKSELLERS AND IMPORTERS 
39 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET 


MDCCCLXXXIII 





PREFACE. 


THE Baptismal Controversy was the controversy of the 
first half of this century. It produced treatises from 
a succession of writers,—Archbishop Laurence, Bishop 
Mant, Mr. Biddulph, Mr. Faber, Bishop Bethell, Dr. 
Pusey, Dr. Goode, Archdeacon Wilberforce, and others. 
It came to a head in the Gorham trial, and has since 
dropped. A review of a field of past controversy, and an 
attempt to arrive at a judgment upon it, may not be 
without use to the theological reader. 

A controversy, if we collect the strong points and 
reasonable admissions of the different writers in it, has 
sometimes a force and value as a whole beyond the sepa- 
rate works of which it is composed; the different works 
taken together tending to establish a conclusion which 
is not proved in any one of them singly. In the present 
controversy Archbishop Laurence and Bishop Bethell, on 
the one hand, admit that all infants are not regenerate in 
baptism in the sense, claimed for that term, of actual good- 
ness. On the other hand, Dr. Pusey and Mr. Faber, both 
disciples of antiquity, claim that sense for thisterm. If 
these conclusions are both of them correct, as agreeing, the 
one with common sense and experience, the other with 

A 2 


lv Preface. 


the natural meaning of Seripture, we have the direction 
of this controversy as a whole, and the issue to which it 
tends. 

I have, however, in the present treatise, confined my- 
self to two positions: one, that the doctrine of the re- 
generation of all infants in baptism is not an article of 
the faith ; the other, that the formularies of our Church 
do not impose it. Moderate and needful fulness, in the 
proof of main ‘positions, will lead a writer unavoidably 
into questions not identical with those positions ; but a 
candid reader will distinguish between such collateral 
questions, and the main positions which it is the object 
of a treatise to prove. 

These two positions, which occupy respectively the two 
Parts of the present Treatise, have this connexion, that if 
the one is proved, the way is favourably prepared for the 
proof of the other. We cannot, indeed, considering all 
the objects which a Christian Church has in view, insist 
on limiting its safeguards to fundamentals; but thus 
much must be allowed, that, if a particular doctrine is 
not an article of the faith, there is no special reason for 
expecting that the formularies of our Church will be 
found to impose it; and, in entering upon the exami- 
nation of this latter question, we are saved that anxiety 
which we should feel, supposing the subject-matter of the 
question were a fundamental. 

The construction which has been put upon our Formu- 
laries in this treatise is the same which, judging from 


Preface. Vv 


their practice, was put upon them by our School of Stan- 
dard Divines. The division of opinion on this question 
was as patent a fact in their day as it is in our own. 
Had they regarded, therefore, one of these opinions as 
contradictory to our Formularies, they would have ar- 
raigned the public maintainers of it. But in no one 
instance did they do so. The attempt which was made 
ten years ago to convert a difference into a ground of 
exclusion, however sincere the convictions from which it 
proceeded, was wholly new and unprecedented. The late 
learned Bishop Kaye defended the Gorham Judgment 
upon this ground, that it represented the tradition of the 
English Church, denying that it ‘‘ sanctioned any inno- 
vation in the doctrine of the Church respecting the efficacy 
of infant baptism.” ' The Bishop of St. David’s defended 
the Judgment upon the same ground, viz. that those who 
pronounced it “wished to leave the doctrine of the 
Church precisely as they found it, not to erect but to 
prevent the erection of any new barrier to the exercise of 
the ministry within her communion.”? The Bishop of 
Oxford has supported the Judgment, by the statement 


1 Volume of Charges, p. 448. One of equal learning, who aided 
the Tractarian movement by his laborious life and singular and 
saintly simplicity of character, wrote: “If Mr. Gorham himself 
would set up his defence strictly upon the ground of this writer, we 
might allow it to be probable that the unfettered Church would 
bear with him.” Review of * Augustinian Doctrine of Predestina- 
tion,” by the late Mr. Charles Marriott. Literary Churchman, 
June 30, 1855. 2 Charge in 1851. 


vl Preface. 


that “the Prayer Book is the common standing-place ” 
and “common statement of truth,’ for both parties in 
the Church.’ 

The attempt, therefore, made on that occasion in the 
direction of exclusion, may be retired from without any 
surrender of our historical Church Standard. It may 
happen to religious parties, as it does to political, that 
they may sometimes in the warmth of zeal make a mis- 
taken move, and commit themselves to a claim for which 
there is not sufficient ground. But there is nothing in 
the Gorham Judgment which involves any departure from 
Anglican principles, and the acceptance of it need not 
rank as a party badge, or be exposed to the reproach of 
unsound Churchmanship. 


3 Speech in Convocation, February, 1858, and Charge in 1861. 


CONTENTS. 


PARE Ff, 


CHAPTER 


I. Proor FROM SCRIPTURE i 


. . . . . 


II. Tue Doctrine oF BAPTISM SO FAR AS CONTAINED IN 
ScRIPTURE z é ; 


III. Tue Baprismat CHARACTER . 


IV. REGENERATION CONSIDERED AS REMISSION OF SIN 


V. ScRIPTURAL SENSE OF REGENERATION 


VI. PatRISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION 
VII. ScHOLASTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION 
VIII. CaLvInNistIc SENSE OF REGENERATION 


IX. REGENERATION OF ADULTS IN Baptism 


X. REGENERATION OF INFANTS IN Baptism 


XI. SEconDARY AND INCORRECT SENSES OF REGENERATION. 


XII. THE PATRISTIC ASSERTION OF THE REGENERATION OF ALL 
INFANTS IN Baptism 


XIII. AUGUSTINIANISM 


° . . . . 


XIV. Conctusion . : ; 


Pak tL, 


I. IntRopuctTION ‘ : 


II, Toe Inrant BaptrisMAL SERVICE 


. . . . 


III. THe CatecHIsm . : 


PAGE 


227 
235 
252 


Vill Contents. 


CHAPTER PAGE 
TV. Rue or LItvERAL INTERPRETATION CONSIDERED . 1 Oak 


V. ARTICLES AND PrRayER BOOK CONSIDERED IN CONNEXION 284 


V1. Documentary SovuRcEs. ; : ; 5 » 295 
VII. Baptismat LANGUAGE OF CALVINISM . f ‘ :° oon 
VIII. ARGUMENT OF PRECEDENT . : ; : . 337 
TX, RELATIONS OF TIME BETWEEN THE GRACE AND THE 
SACRAMENT . : : : ; ; ; <n 


X. CONCLUSION . ; : : : , : : oo ae 


NOTES . ‘ : : : é . 369 







PEINCETON. 





ae 


CHAPTER I 


Tae question of Fundamentals to which so much difficulty 
attaches, only enters, to a very limited extent, into the 
of this Treatise. 

No rule has been laid down for determining Funda- 
mentals which will bear a strictly logical test of 
adequacy._ The Roman test, besides being one which 
we do not admit, is hardly so much a test of Funda- 
mentals, as of simple obedience to Church authority. 
For though it leaves a distinction still standing between 
certain questions which are open, and others which are 
decided, the decision of such 4 multitude of points great 


which our own divines acknowledge, the first, that no 
doctrme shall be held necessary to be believed which 
cannot be proved by Scripture, is not im its very terms a 
_ rule for deciding what is a fundamental, but for deciding 
what is not one; the second, or the Vincentian rule of 
1<Tt is the masterpiece of all the divines of Christendom to say 
what is fundamental m Christianity and what is not.” Thorn- 
dike, “ Principles of Christian Truth,” b-ie¢. 2s 2 
W- 7 


Proof from Scripture. [Part I. 





quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab ommbus, rests upon no 
logical basis, for no valid reason can be given why some 
things not necessary to be believed may not yet in matter 
of fact have been universally believed in the first ages of 
the Church. 

Some divines have attempted, in the absence of definite 
external test, to lay down an intrinsic criterion, and have 
formed systems of fundamentals by selecting certain 
central and cardinal truths singled out as such by our 
religious sense and feeling, and their own evident rank in 
Scripture.” Such a criterion, failing as it does in defi- 
niteness and precision, has still great and just weight, 
from the circumstance that we cannot help ourselves 
being judges as to what is essential or not to the religion 
to which we ourselves belong; our hearts naturally fix on 
certain truths which appear the most deep and central 
ones; nor, perhaps, however argumentatively defective, 
is there any criterion which does suck practical service in 


2 See “ Waterland’s Rationale of Fundamentals,” vol. v. p. 79: 
“‘ Such doctrines as are found to be intrinsical or essential to the 
Christian covenant are fundamental truths, and such as are plainly 
and directly subversive of it are fundamental errors.” No parti- 
cular doctrine as to the Sacraments figures in his scheme as a 
fundamental, but only the general acknowledgment of the two 
sacraments as means of grace. “The discarding the two sacra- 
ments, or either of them, and the denying their use or necessity, is 
erring fundamentally,” p. 82. Stillingfleet’s criterion is an appeal 
to the reason of Christians: “ No rational man who considers the 
nature of the Christian religion, but must assert the profession of 
all these things to be necessary to all such who own the Christian 
religion to be true.” ‘‘ Vindication,” vol.1. p. 88. Sherlock’s is 
the same. “A fundamental doctrine is such a doctrine as is in 
strict sense of the essence of Christianity, without which the whole 
building and superstructure must fall; the belief of which is 
necessary to the very being of Christianity, like the first principles 
of any art or science.” ‘‘ Vindication of Def. of Stillingfleet,” 
p. 206. 


Cuap. I.] Proof from Scripture. 3 


producing substantial agreement among Christians. But 
I leave this informal criterion, and confine myself to the 
two recognized tests mentioned. 

1. The rule “ quod semper,” &c., must be taken in such 
a sense as to render it capable of application. Ifa given 
doctrine has literally been held semper, and ab ommnibus, 
it was held by all the Apostles, but we can have no 
evidence of this literal semper, &c., except the writings of 
the New Testament, and to go to this evidence is to 
supersede the Vincentian rule by merging it in proof 
from Scripture. The rule then must be understood in a 
modified sense as appealing to no more than general early 
consent. But thus modified, this test of an article of the 
faith is defective in ground of reason, because no reason 
can be given why some things not necessary to the Faith 
may not yet from an early date have been in matter of 
fact believed. We cannot limit even this universal belief 
to necessary subject-matter, so that it may not com- 
prehend something extra. The Vincentian rule is thus 
a rough kind of test, getting at what 1s necessary by a 
process which carries along with it what is extraneous, 
and imposing the whole corpus of de facto received 
opinion, that it may secure the substance of the Faith. 
The rule presupposes, for its reasonable application, 
something added to the mere external fact of general 
acceptance; it leaves something for the judgment to 
decide with respect to the intrinsic qualification of the 
received point for the rank of an article of the faith. 
Thus coupled and conjoined with other rules it is of 
weight; but it cannot be pretended that every single 
piece of belief entertained in the first ages,—however 
obviously secondary, as regards the matter of it, and 
below the intrinsic criterion of a fundamental,—is still a 
fundamental, by virtue of the simple fact of having been 


generally received. 
B 2 


4 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I, 


Indeed, for the purpose of proving articles of faith, 
this rule has not been turned by our divines to any great 
practical account. The real use of the rule has fallen a 
good deal short of its professed use; and, in the actual 
application of it, it has not been made to serve as a test 
of doctrine beyond the limit of such doctrines as Scripture 
itself proves without its aid. Some writers have hinted 
at a deficiency of Scripture proof on some points of ne- 
cessary belief to be supplied by antiquity, but these hints 
are not followed up or moulded into argumentative form ; 
and those who have most respected the Vincentian rule 
have practically made the plain sense of Scripture the 
basis of articles of faith. 

The purpose to which the Vincentian rule has been 
practically applied has been, first, the defence of the 
Church’s external polity, as the guarantee for the true 
existence of a Church, and, secondly, the proof of the 
nature and character of the two Sacraments. The evidence 
supplied by antiquity on these points has been much 
insisted on,—not for the purpose, however, of enforcing 
belief ; the facts being treated as essential, but not the 
belief in the facts. It was necessary for the Christian 
status of a person that he should be in a Church thus 
organized, and should receive true Sacraments; but it 
was not necessary that he should believe in the necessity 
of this Church organization, or in the true nature of the 
Sacraments. “The Sixth Article,’ says Mr. Keble, 
“leaves ample scope for the province which Bishop Taylor 
assigned principally to tradition: practical rules relating 
to the Church of Christ. For anything stated in this 
Article such rule might be both divine and generally 
necessary to salvation, and yet not be contained in Scrip- 
ture; but the doctrines or propositions concerning them 
would not be necessary: it would be wrong to insert them 
as Articles of the Creed. For instance, St. Ignatius 


Cuap. I.] Proof from Scripture. 5 


writes as follows: ‘ Let that Eucharist be accounted valid 
which is under the Bishop, or some one commissioned by 
him. Wherein the lays down the rule, which we know 
was universally received in the Primitive Church, that 
consecration by apostolical authority is essential to the 
participation of the Eucharist, and so far generally neces- 
sary to salvation. Now, supposing this could not be at 
all proved from Scripture . . . still it might be accepted, 
on the above evidence, as a necessary rule of Church 
Communion, without infringing on our Sixth Article: 
but it could not be turned into a proposition, and put into 
the Creed, because that would make not only the rule 
itself, as observed by the Church, but the knowledge of 
it by the individual necessary to salvation ; and it may be 
thankfully admitted that knowledge of the true nature of 
Sacraments is nowhere required in Holy Scripture as a 
condition of our receiving the grace they impart.’ * 

The Vincentian rule then, or the test of consent of an- 
tiquity, has not been practically applied by writers of our 
Church to determine articles of the faith, but only to 
prove points of necessary observance as distinguished 
from belief: the very points which are necessary to be 
observed not being considered to carry with them the 
obligation to believe that they are thus necessary to be 
observed. 

2. The second rule, that nothing is to be regarded as 
an article of the faith or necessary to be believed, but 
what may be proved by Scripture, is founded partly upon 
the authority of antiquity, partly upon a natural assump- 
tion respecting Scripture. Ifa revelation is accompanied 
by a series of inspired writings, obviously containing a 
general account of that revelation, and designed by God 
for the use of all ages, the natural inference from such a 


3 Postscript to Sermon on Tradition, p. 351. 


6 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I. 


fact is that these writings contain at any rate the funda- 
mental truths of that revelation. It may be said that 
they were addressed, in the first instance, to Christians 
already acquainted with the truths of their religion ; but 
when certain writings are distinguished from all other 
writings by the fact of being inspired ; when they possess 
thus a special character, and fulfil a special design of 
God, extending to the remotest ages of the world, we 
are not at liberty to consider only the accidental circum- 
stances of their original communication, to whom they 
were addressed in the first instance, and what temporary 
occasions and objects called them out; nor have wea 
right to look upon each of these writings wholly apart 
from the others, as if they were a collection of scattered 
documents to which the collector alone gave unity and 
the appearance of a whole; but the common character- 
istic of plenary inspiration gives them of itself a unity 
and wholeness, possessing as they do this remarkable 
attribute for a particular Divine object, viz. for the mani- 
festation of this religion to successive ages of the world, 
and instruction of mankind in it. Looking upon them 
in this light, though there is no reason why each book of 
Scripture separately should contain all the fundamental 
truths of Christianity, we naturally assume that all the 
books together do; i.e. that all having this common 
attribute of inspiration for the specific purpose mentioned, 
and being constructed under this special Divine provi- 
dence for this purpose, should be so constructed as one 
with another to contain all the fundamental truths of the 
religion, for the unfolding, enforcing, and explaining of 
which they are thus inspired; one book of the whole 
providential series fulfilling what may be wanting in 
another ; just as in the whole production of some human 
author, it is not necessary that the fundamental principles 
or objects of the work should appear in every chapter or 


Cuape. I.] Proof from Scripture. 7 


portion of it, while there is certainly a very strong reason 
why they should appear in the work as a whole. It may 
be true that Protestants are apt to look upon the Bible 
too much as one book; but so far as the whole of it is 
the production of One Inspiring Mind, dictating all the 
writings successively for one great object, this popular 
idea of it is just, and represents, though it may be want- 
ing in critical discrimination, an important truth: for we 
ought not to allow ourselves so to dwell upon the accidental 
manner and circumstances of the original appearance of 
the various writings which compose the Bible, as to 
supersede that unity of Authorship which belongs to it, 
so far as the Divine Inspirer is concerned, and which is 
not the least interfered with by any amount of what is 
accidental in the outward form and occasion of these 
writings, their. separate and scattered character as they 
first came out; all which irregularity may be as simply 
instrumental to one Divine purpose working underneath 
as the greatest regularity of outward construction.* 

The doctrine of plenary inspiration then being supposed, 
the assumption that Holy Scripture contains all the 
fundamental truths of Christianity, is a natural and 
reasonable assumption; and when we say “contains” 
them, we mean of course that it contains them in such a 
way as that we can, with proper attention, see them so 
contained, as having been stated for that purpose. We 
cannot do altogether without assumptions in religion; 
what we have to look to is the kind of assumptions we 
make, that they should be moderate and natural ones. 
The Roman assumption of the necessity of a constant 
Infallible Judge in the Church, is not wrong because 
it is an assumption, but because it is an unnatural and 


* See some able remarks in Chapter v. of “ Scepticism and 
Revelation,” by the Rev. H. Harris. 


8 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I. 





violent one, opposed to the whole analogy of God’s 
providence. 

This second test, then, viz. that of proof from Scripture, 
though anegative test only, deciding what is not an article 
of the faith, not what is, is for its professed purpose a 
more logical criterion than the other, standing on the 
sound rational ground which has been just explained. It 
is moreover a test which has been formally adopted by 
our Church, and is therefore strictly binding upon us, the 
Vincentian having only the recommendation which the 
authority of antiquity gives. I will add that it is the 
only test with which the argument of this treatise is 
concerned ; for a negative test is sufficient for a negative 
conclusion. 

With respect to the interpretation, then, of this rule or 
canon, three points are to be observed: first, that by 
Scripture proving a doctrine is meant more than Scripture 
admitting of being interpreted ,in consisteney with it ; 
secondly, that there is implied in this prooffrom Scripture 
an ultimate appeal to our reason as the judge of it; 
thirdly, that we are concerned in this Canon with the fact 
of the presence or absence of such proof, as distinguished 
from any explanations of this fact. 

I. When proof from Scripture, then, is in this Canon 
laid down as a condition of an article of the faith, by 
proof from Scripture we understand an obligation result- 
ing from the terms of Scripture alone to assent to the 
doctrine in question as the teaching of Scripture. This 
is the natural and only legitimate meaning of proof from 
a document, viz. that the language of such document 
of itself conveys a particular truth or fact as its necessary 
meaning ; in the absence of which evidence from the 
language itself, such truth or fact is not proved by 
the document, however it may be by other evidence. 
Such proof admits of different degrees, and less than 


Cuap. I.] Proof from Scripture. 9 


the large and full amount which some doctrines receive 
from Scripture, might yet be sufficient to constitute proof 
from Scripture. 

A particular explanation of this Canon, however, has 
been offered by some who appear to consider it enough 
to constitute proof from Scripture if, a doctrine having 
the consent of antiquity, Scripture only admits of being 
understood in agreement withit. But this Canon requires 
that the doctrine in question should be proved by 
Scripture, not simply that it should not be disproved by 
it, or that Scripture should be susceptible of the interpreta- 
tion. Nor can the consent of antiquity ever, according to 
this Canon, supply the place of proof from Scripture, as 
if where the former was very prominent the latter might 
be proportionably reduced, till at last only absence of 
disproof was necessary ; but proof from Scripture is the 
previous condition, in the absence of which the consent 
of antiquity is for the purpose of raising a doctrine into an 
article of the faith, of no force. Such an explanation indeed 
of proof from Scripture entirely changes the meaning 
of it; for, inasmuch as a doctrine is not proved by 
Scripture simply because Scripture admits of beg under- 
stood in agreement with it, to allow the consent of anti- 
quity to raise a doctrine into an article of the faith, only 
with the salvo that Scripture shall admit of being inter- 
preted in agreement with it, is to allow the consent of 
antiquity to determine an article of faith in the absence of 
proof from Scripture. 

The case must be recognized indeed of particular state- 
ments in a book being, in default of internal clearness, 
correctly explained from collateral sources, i.e. of facts or 
truths being asserted ina book according to the intention 
of the writer, while the proof that they are thus asserted 
in the book, comes from another quarter than the book. 
But recognizing such a case we still could not designate 


10 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I. 


the proof instanced in it as proof from the book, which it 
plainly is not; whereas in this Canon proof from the 
book itself is the proof mentioned and required. ' 

Proof from Scripture must thus be specially distin- 
guished from what are called “ hints’? from Scripture. 
The duty is sometimes urged of accepting hints from 
Scripture, as 1f omission were designed to try our faith; 
and this as a different duty from that of merely carrying 
out into particulars general principles and precepts of 
Scripture, which are more than hints. Such a point of 
view in which to regard omissions in Scripture, to what- 
ever purpose we apply it, requires caution, inasmuch as 
it represents humility and obedience as tested by adding 
to Scripture; for to supply a meaning to statements not 
strictly contained in them, is to add to such statements ; 
and, there being a risk that the ideas by which we thus 
supplement Scripture will represent our own mind rather 
than the mind of Scripture, such a criterion of humility 
and obedience should be used with great qualification. 
But there is one purpose to which this point of view is 
quite inapplicable; because whatever be the design of 
these alleged “‘ hints”? of Scripture, it is not to establish 
articles of the faith, for which purpose there is specially 
required proof. 

Such being the natural meaning, however, of proof 
from Scripture, we encounter on going into the practical 
application of this Canon three objections to this meaning. 

The first is an objection drawn from the influence of 
custom, tradition, and education, in determining our 
sense of Scripture. It is urged that we practically 
obtain our meaning of Scripture from tradition and 
education, and that therefore proof from Scripture only 
means practically a sense put on Scripture by tradition. 

There is a good deal that is questionable then in the 
statement of fact here made. To a certain extent we 


Cuap. I.] Proof from Scripture. II 


doubtless depend upon education and custom as inter- 
preters of Scripture; still we are rational beings, and 
are able, with a moderate attention, to see whether such 
and such is the natural meaning of a statement in Scrip- 
ture or not; and if it is not, it is gratuitous to suppose 
that we should always go on thinking it was, becauSe 
we had been so taught. But however this may be, the 
consideration here urged is an irrelevant one. For the 
meaning of proof from Scripture is not in the slightest 
degree affected by the mode in which we gain our per- 
ception of such proof, whether by our own judgment, or 
by education and tradition. It often happens that when 
we have not seen the meaning of a statement in an 
ordinary book by ourselves, on somebody coming and 
pointing it out to us we see it quite clearly. But when 
we see it clearly because it has been pointed out to us, 
we still see it as being implied in the words themselves, 
and shown to be the meaning by the words. The light 
which has been thrown upon the passage, even if a bor- 
rowed one, shows the sense of the passage all the same 
as being contained in the language. In seeing a truth, 
then, to be proved by Scripture, whether we have arrived 
at that meaning of Scripture by our own judgment or by 
education and tradition, in either case we must see the 
meaning in the words themselves, and as necessarily con- 
tained in them; otherwise it is incorrect to say that we 
do see the proof in Scripture. Proof from Scripture 
does not suppose that Scripture may not have been inter- 
preted to us by education or tradition, but only that, 
when it has been interpreted, the meaning in question is 
then seen to be contained in the words themselves, and 
to be their obligatory meaning, not one only among 
others which they admit of. We may be wrong in 
asserting—and we are liable to error whether our guide 
be tradition or our own judgment—that certain words 


12 Proof from Scripture. [ Parr I. 


do prove a particular doctrine; still that they must prove 
it is what we assert in this Canon, not only that they 
must admit of the construction. 

When then it is said that tradition “first teaches cer- 
tain doctrines, and then proves them out of Scripture,” 
there is nothing in such a statement inconsistent with 
the Canon we are now considering, provided we under- 
stand that the proof from Scripture which tradition gives, 
when she does give it, is of this sort, viz. that we then 
see such to be the necessary meaning of the language 
of Scripture itself. For if Scripture is treated as so 
obscure, that even when its meaning is pointed out we 
see it only as the meaning of which the words are sus- 
ceptible, not that which they demand, it is ridiculous to 
speak of proving anything by Scripture.’ Tradition 
may indeed, on such an hypothesis, extract a meaning 
out of Scripture, which meaning, if tradition is infal- 
lible, will be the true one; but it is incorrect to say that 
this meaning in Scripture is proved by Scripture, when 
by the very supposition it is only proved to be in Scrip- 
ture by tradition. 


5 The text, “Iam the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
the God of Jacob,” appealed to by our Lord as proving the doc- 
trine of a future state, only proves this doctrine to those who see 
the latent argument in it, after it has been pointed out, and so see 
the proof in the words themselves. Those who do not see the 
proof in the words, doubtless accept this meaning of them upon 
our Lord’s authority, but the doctrine is not proved to them by 
this text of Scripture. 

6 «The difference between their opinion and ours concerning this 
difficulty is, that they think the Scripture so obscure and hard to 
be understood, that heretics may wrest and abuse it at their plea- 
sure, and no man be able to convince their folly out of the wisdom 
of Scripture itself..... But we say that men not neglecting 
the right of direction which the Church yieldeth, nor other helps 
and means, may be assured .... that they have found out the 
true meaning of it.” Field on the Church, p. 365. 


Cuap. I.] Proof from Scripture. 13 


We may indeed easily exaggerate the obscurity of 
Scripture, the language of which, where it relates to 
truths which most Christians agree in considering funda- 
mental, is as plain as the language of ordinary intelli- 
gible books. And though variety of interpretation, 
where there has been such universal, anxious, and curious 
examiantion, would not, if it existed to a greater extent 
than it does, show the obscurity of Scripture itself, so 
much as the torturing nature of the ordeal to which it 
was exposed ; still, as a matter of fact, we may observe 
a very general agreement among Christians in the funda- 
mental doctrines they extract from Scripture, and con- 
sider to be proved by it. The Roman Church imposes 
various articles, indeed, on the express ground of tradi- 
tion or Church authority, which she does not profess to 
rest upon Scripture proof, not considering such a condi- 
tion necessary ; but, if we except one or two sects, there 
is a very general agreement among Christians in the 
truths which are considered to be proved by Scripture 
itself. 

Secondly, in order to explain away the meaning of 
proof from Scripture, advantage is taken of this Canon 
omitting to say who is the judge of proof. But the 
meaning of proof is in no way affected by the omission 
to decide who is the judge of proof; because whoever 
the judge is, the question of which he is the judge is the 
same, viz. of proof of a particular doctrine from a par- 
ticular document. Whether the Universal Church, then, 
or a particular Church, or an individual, be the judge of 
such proof, it is this proof, and this alone, of which he 
has to judge. The decision which the judge, whoever 
he be, undertakes to make, is whether such and such a 
doctrine is satisfactorily proved by the terms of Scripture 
alone ; diverging from which question, and coming to 
the decision that Scripture admits of an interpretation in 


14 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I. 


agreement with this doctrine, supposed to be proved by 
antiquity, he deserts his proper task, and abandons the 
office of judge of proof from Scripture. 

On a question of ordinary fact, what is called ‘ proof 
from evidence” leaves it wholly open who is the judge of 
such proof; but proof from evidence does not the less 
mean proof from the evidence itself, i.e. from that whole 
collection of facts which is adduced in the case. When 
we speak of proof from any ordinary book, a history, or 
a treatise, that such and such a fact or opinion is asserted 
in it, the meaning of proof in these cases is the same, 
whoever is the judge of it. 

Thirdly, it will be urged that some important points 
of established practice among Christians have no clear 
warrant in Scripture, such as Infant Baptism, the ob- 
servance of the Sunday, and others; and therefore that, 
inasmuch as we accept these points, we admit the ground 
of tradition as distinct from that of Scripture. But the 
answer is, that though we undoubtedly admit the ground 
of tradition, we do not admit it for establishing articles 
of the faith, which is the question at issue. Neither 
Infant Baptism nor the observance of the Sunday come 
under the head of Articles of Faith, though they are 
generally received as matters of Christian practice. 
Though it was a proper answer, then, to the Puritans 
who forbade the Church all rules and customs but such 
as could be found in Scripture, to instance certain points 
of practice which they themselves admitted, and which 
yet were not found in Scripture; it is irrelevant to urge 
this fact against the position that articles of faith must 
be proved from Scripture, upon which it has no bearing 
whatever ; and such a reply is Hooker’s just retort upon 
the Puritan prohibition, illogically transferred to another 
and wholly different one.’ 


7 It is for the same argumentative purpose that the remark is 


Cuap. I. ] Proof from Scripture. 15 


Could any case be shown indeed of an article of the 
faith which we admit without proof from Scripture, we 
should be committed in principle to tradition, as a warrant 
for articles of the faith. But no such case can be shown. 
It is sometimes urged indeed that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is not clearly contained in Scripture, but though 
the word “Trinity” is not in Scripture, the dactrine 
plainly is; the Unity of God being the great doctrine 
of the Bible from beginning to end, and the existence 
of Three Divine Persons being clearly declared in the 
New Testament.* These two revelations together com- 
pose the doctrine, nor would it be possible to extract 
anything else out of these several communications 
respecting the Divine Being in Scripture, than what we 
hold under the phrase ‘‘ Trinity in Unity,” which is in 
meaning simply identical with those communications 
taken together. 

But is not the Canon of Scripture, it may be asked, an 
article of the faith, and do we not obtain that plainly 
from tradition, inasmuch as Scripture, even if it asserted, 
could not in the nature of the case prove its own inspira- 
tion? I reply that it is not correct to say that the Canon 
of Scripture is an article of the faith. The acceptance 
of the main Canon of Scripture, as handed down by tradi- 


sometimes made, that the law of monogamy cannot be proved out 
of the Bible, and that therefore we are obliged to fall back upon 
Christian tradition. Everything, however, that a Christian must 
observe in practice, is-not therefore an article of the Christian 
faith, according to the distinction which was drawn above, p. 4. 
And, moreover, this law is proved by Scripture (Gen. i. 27) as 
interpreted by our Lord (Matt. xix. 4). 

8 The Scripture proof of the Personality of the Holy Spirit, 
though less full than that of our Lord’s Divinity, is still properly 
proof, when we take in the whole of it, which connected state- 
ments of it, such as Pearson’s and Barrow’s, only assist us in 
doing. 


16 Proof from Scripture. [Parr I. 


tion, is indeed essential in ordine to a belief in the 
doctrines of Christianity ; and a person who rejected it 
could not entertain that belief, because he could have 
no proof, without the admission of such Scripture, of 
the revelation of such doctrines. But the Canon of 
Scripture is not on its own account of necessary accept- 
ance, as is shown by the fact that individuals have at 
different times, with the consent—though justly cautious 
and jealous—of the Church, exercised the right of re- 
jecting smaller portions of it, where such a right could 
be exercised without interfering with the Scriptural proof 
of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. 

The distinction is indeed sufficiently clear between the 
Canon of Scripture and an article of the faith. An 
article of the faith belongs to the substance of revealed 
truth ; but the channel of the communication of the truth 
is no part of the substance of the truth: the instrument 
of disclosure is external to the thing disclosed. If I 
receive a message, it is necessary, in order to accepting 
the intelligence conveyed in it, that I should believe 
that a messenger has brought it; but the messenger 
and his credentials are no part of the message. There 
is no logical inconsistency then in saying that tradition 
proves the inspiration of Scripture, and yet does not 
prove articles of faith; because the inspiration is the 
medium of communication, the article of faith is the 
thing communicated. If the Bible contains, according 
to the natural construction of its language, certain 
truths, tradition may prove the Bible, but the Bible 
proves the truths.? 


9 Hooker and Laud meet the fallacious difficulty of the Church 
proving Scripture, and Scripture proving the Church, by sup- 
posing an incipient belief in Scripture upon the assertion of 
the Church, which is converted into assurance by personal insight 
into Scripture (Eccl. Pol. i. c. viii. s. 14. Laud’s Conference 


Cuap. I. | Proof from Screpture. 17 


II. The meaning of proof from Scripture being stated, 
the next point to be observed in this Canon is an ultimate 
reference which is implied in it to our own reason as 
the judge of such proof. 

If the rule which requires proof from Scripture as a 
condition of an article of the faith, leaves it open who is 
the primary judge of such proof, and allows for the 
function of the Church as interpreter of Scripture in the 
first instance, it yet implies as absolutely essential to the 
rational use and application of it, an ultimate reserve in 
favour of the right of our own reason to this office. For 
it belongs to the very nature and subject-matter of the 
decision here, that our own reason has an ultimate re- 
sponsibility in it, for we cannot help ourselves being 
judges upon such a question as whether certain words 
have a certain meaning, and whether certain statements 
of Scripture prove that a particular doctrine is taught 
there. Did the proof of doctrine indeed end in the 
Church’s assertion, no judicial capacity would be assigned 
to our reason in the matter; but inasmuch as the proof 
goes on, by an appeal of the Church herself, to Scripture 
warrant, we cannot, without an absurdity, be under a 


with Fisher, s. 16). For this somewhat hazardous ground on 
which to rest the ultimate proof of inspiration, Thorndike sub- 
stitutes the correcter ground of testimony simply; the presenter 
of this testimony being the Church, but not, as he draws the 
distinction, the Church as a Church, which would be involving 
himself in the argumentative circle just mentioned, but only as a 
body of competent witnesses testifying to the assertion of certain 
men, who gave the guarantee of miracles for the truth of it, that 
their writings were inspired (‘“ Principles of Christian Truth,” ¢, ii. 
s. 18, 19). Bishop Marsh rests the proof of inspiration upon 
the same ultimate ground of miracles :—“ We must have estab- 
lished the divine origin of our religion before we can prove 
inspiration. For nothing but either divine testimony or prophecy 
can confirm it.” Lecture i. p. 36. 
Cc 


18 Proof from Scripture. [PagriL, 


dogmatic and theoretical obligation to accept any state- 
ment whatever, as such warrant, however wholly wide of 
the mark it may be. And therefore the appeal to Scrip- 
ture proof implies in itself an ultimate reserve of a 
judicial function to our own reason in the acceptance 
of such proof.’ 

It may be asked, what is the practical advantage of 
this right to the individual, if, whenever by the exertion 
of it, he arrives at a different conclusion, on a funda- 
mental point, from the Church to which he belongs, 
he exposes himself to excommunication, But the answer 
is, that the right is still a solid advantage. It is true 
the Church must impose certain fundamental articles 
of belief on her members, otherwise she has corporately 
no belief at all; but if the Church acknowledges an 
ultimate right in the individual to judge what constitutes 
proof from Scripture, she is obliged in consistency, and 
for her own security, to select the doctrines she imposes 
by a fair and generally recognized standard of Scripture 
proof: otherwise her members, feeling themselves by her 
own admission possessed of this ultimate-right, will leave 
her upon her coming into collision with it. This admis- 
sion thus dictates the Church’s point of view from the 
first, and ties her in limine to a fair and broad criterion 
of proof from Scripture. 

IIf. A third point to be observed in the Canon which 
requires proof from Scripture for an article of the faith 
is, that it only looks to the fact of the presence or 
absence of such proof in Scripture, and does not enter 
into the reasons and explanations of its absence. Ex- 
planations of the absence of certain doctrines in Scripture 
might sometimes be given, drawn from the circumstances 


1 Those of our divines who stand up most for the authority of 
the Church acknowledge this ultimate right in the individual. 
Note 1. 


Cuap. I. Proof from Scripture. 19 


of the times in which the inspired writings came out, by 
which such omission might be made to appear accidental, 
and owing to temporary causes keeping such doctrines, 
though true, in the background ; but with such explana- 
tions we have nothing to do in the application of this 
Canon, because this Canon makes the fact of the absence 
of proof in Scripture the test and criterion, and the fact 
only. All we have to ask ourselves is,—Is the proof 
there? Is there a sufficient amount of actual statement 
in Scripture to constitute proof? If there is not, it is 
then irrelevant to proffer reasons why there is not. For 
no possible reasons that can be alleged for the absence 
of this proof can make it present; and it is the presence 
of the proof which is required in this Canon. Indeed, 
if we were once to admit the authority of explanations, 
this Canon would not be worth much, and it would be 
almost better not to hold a rule in theory which would 
be futile in practice. But this rule draws us away from 
such speculations, and allows no other criterion of the 
intentions of Scripture but the facts of Scripture. 


CHAPTER II 


THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISM SO FAR AS CONTAINED IN 
SCRIPTURE 


In the inquiry whether the position that all infants are 
regenerate in Baptism is an article of the faith, the 
first question, upon the principles of the preceding 
chapter, to be decided is, whether this position can be 
proved by Scripture; the absence of such proof excluding 
it from this class of fundamental doctrines. 

On referring then, in order to decide this question, to 
the original institution of baptism, as described or alluded 
to in Scripture, we find, in the first place, no mention 
made in Scripture of the baptism of infants at all, and 
no statement in Scripture from which the obligation to 
baptize infants can properly be inferred. God declares, 
indeed, His good will towards infants, especially in the 
text, ‘‘ Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and 
forbid them not.”’ But though, when we rightly use 
the liberty which Scripture does not deny us of bap- 
tizing children, we suitably associate the act with God’s 
declaration of His good will toward them, such a general 
declaration does not prove, in the first instance, that 
infants are qualified for the benefit of that particular 
ordinance. Nor again is such a fitness proved by the 
natural innocence of children, though Scripture in various 
places recommends this natural innocence to us as an 
example, and a type of the Christian character, telling 


1 Mark x. 14. 


Lhe Doctrine of Baptism, &c. aT 


us that “of such is the kingdom of God,”’? and that 
“except we be converted and become as little children, 
we shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”® Nor 
because baptism is generally necessary for salvation, 
which we gather from John ii. 5,1is the obligation to 
baptize infants evident, because for anything we know 
the case of infants may be a peculiar one, and may be 
an exception to the general rule thus laid down. The 
obligation to apply this ordinance to them presupposes 
_ their fitness for it; and that an ordinance itself is gene- 
rally necessary does not prove the fitness of a particular 
class for the reception of it. The Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper is generally necessary to salvation, but we 
do not therefore think infants fit to receive it. The 
promise, again, is “to us and to our children,” * but we 
cannot gather anything more with certainty from this 
text than that God’s promise applies to successive 
generations. 

The bias of theology, Reformed and Anglican, was 
indeed at first to the assertion of the necessity of infant 
baptism, as a practice, the obligation to which could be 
inferred by certain deduction from Scripture; but the 
first controversy with the Anti-pszedobaptists was con- 
ducted with too much exasperation to lead to correct 
theological decisions, and no quarter was allowed a sect 
that had disgraced the Reformation by its excesses. 
The Reformers had, too, on this question the natural fear 
of concession which men have who feel the responsibility 
of the beginning of a movement, when the consequences 
of a point yielded cannot be foreseen, and therefore admit 
of being exaggerated. After reading and reflection, 
theology moderated its claims on this head. The most 
orthodox writers used a different language ; and the second 
Anti-pzdobaptist controversy, which obliged our divines 


2 Mark x. 14. 3 Matt. xvii. 3. 4 Acts 11. 39. 


22 The Doctrine of Baptism so far [Parr I. 


to test their own arguments and re-examine the case, 
while it issued in a clear defeat of the exclusive position 
of one side, extracted also the formal admission from the 
other that infant baptism was not proved by Scripture, 
nor therefore to be considered a necessary practice.° 
Indeed, when we consider that Scripture only men- 
tions adults as baptized at all, and only mentions 
such conditions of baptism as adults can fulfil, it is not 
perhaps too much to say that the aspect in which the 
institution of baptism comes before us in Scripture, is 
that of an institution primarily for adults, under the 
operation of which infants would come, however naturally 
and legitimately, still secondarily. Except, indeed, on 
this supposition, it is difficult to account for the language 
of the whole Church from the first, with respect to the 
baptism of infants, in which there has always been a 
reference to the adult condition of faith, as indirectly 
and by a fiction of Christian law, fulfilled by the baptized 
infant. For why such a peculiar machinery of language, 
why a reference to faith at all in the case of an infant, 
but that it was felt that mfant baptism was an offshoot 
from adult, which, however valid, should still own a 
connexion with the parent stock, and not set up wholly 
for itself? This idea runs through even the doctrinal 
language of antiquity, and especially do all the ancient 
baptismal offices bear an unconscious witness to this 


> The conclusion at which Wall arrives in his great work is 
that Pedobaptism should be treated as an open question, which 
is not to separate members of the same Church. The point on 
which, as distinct from refuting the mistake, he censures the 
conduct of the Anti-pzedobaptists, is that they did not treat the 
question as an open one, but a fundamental, leaving the com- 
munion of the Church in consequence, whereas he would have 
had them remain in the Church, adhering, if they could not be 
dissuaded, to their own practice; which was the line taken by 
a portion of this school at its first rise. See Note 2. 


Cuap. II.] as contained in Scripture. 98 


apparent primary design in the institution of baptism. 
The infant is admitted to baptism on the supposition 
of faith and repentance: he is made to say, that he 
believes that he renounces the world, and desires to be 
baptized. But why this recourse to a supposition, and 
to an indirect admission of the infant upon the adult — 
ground instead of upon his own status as an infant, if 
it was not that the practice of infant baptism had to 
be maintained in combination with the idea of an in- 
stitution primarily for adults? Even when the supposi- 
tion was not expressed, as it was in the offices,® the 
baptismal theory of the Church supplied it as the tacit 
accompaniment even of the most naked administration 
of the rite. The faith of the parent or sponsor stood for 
that of the child:! if the child had neither, the faith of 
the Church did the same; the infant never left the 
ground of a supposed adult qualification, and the Church 
has with remarkable caution, and in spite of much temp- 
tation, never, to this day, ventured upon the step of a 
total removal of the infant from the basis of the adult 
in baptism. Our Church, accordingly, in her account 
of the Sacrament of Baptism in the Catechism, treats it 
primarily as an institution for adults, pronouncing faith 
and repentance to be the conditions of baptism,—“ that 
which is required of persons to be. baptized.” She then 
introduces infants to the benefit of the sacrament, but 
still through the medium of the adult conditions, not 


6 Mature reflection might have taught the Puritans of a former 
day, and might still teach some objectors of our own, that the 
institution of sponsors is a witness rather against than for a 
superstitious doctrine of baptism, as connecting the infant with 
the conditions of an adult. 

7 «Prodest ergo non credentibus ? Sed abest ut ego dicam non 
credentes infantes. Credit in altero qui peccavit in altero.... 
unde credunt ? Quomodo credunt? Fide parentum.”’ Augustine, 
Serm. 294, c. 18, 19. 


24 The Doctrine of Baptism so far [Parr I. 


upon the ground of their own status as infants,—“ be- 
cause they promise them both by their sureties, which 
promise when they come to age themselves are bound to 
perform.” ® 

It has been urged, indeed, that baptism and circum- 
cision stand on the same ground as infant rites, but the 
two ordinances differ considerably in the whole manner 
and circumstances of their institution. Circumcision 
was by the very form of its original institution a rite for 
infants and adults equally. “'This is My covenant which 
ye shall keep between Me and you, and thy seed after 
thee ; every man child among you shall be circumcised. 
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among 
you, every man child in your generations.” Adults and 
infants then stood on equal ground with respect to cir- 
cumcision by the very letter of Scripture. But when 
Scripture describes the original institution of Christian 
Baptism, it makes no mention of infants, and everything 
relating to the rite is given in connexion with adults. 

If this distinction in the original type of the institu- 
tion be true, it would seem that practice has been in the 
contrary direction to original type, has selected for the 
field of growth not a first application but a second, and 
has made an institution almost wholly for infants out of 
an institution primarily for adults. But whether we 
accept this distinction or not, it still remains true that 
the practice of Infant Baptism is no essential part of the 
original institution of baptism, but only the particular 
shape it has taken in its practical working in the Christian 


8 This answer admits of two meanings, according to the kind of 
anticipation to which we interpret it to apply; whether the recep- 
tion of the sacrament previous to the grace, or the reception of 
the grace previous to fulfilment of the conditions of the grace. In 
either case, however, the infant by the act of “ promising” is asso- 
ciated with the future adult. 


Cuav. II.] as contained in Scripture. 25 





community. For some centuries even of Church prac- 
tice there was by no means the same regularity on this 
point that there is now, and such passages as the cele- 
brated one in Tertullian “ Quid festinat innocens eetas,” 
&c., and others, though not admitting of the mterpre- 
tation which Anti-peedobaptists have given them, or 
inconsistent even with the belief in the necessity of 
infant baptism as the alternative of going without bap- 
tism altogether, still show that the practical standard of 
those times on this point was very different from that of 
our own. Though the institution then has thus attained 
so extensive a practical development in one direction, 
this must not divert us from the original type of the 
‘institution itself, which was neutral and open on this 
point, leaving its own future working and mode of appli- 
cation, so long as the substance was secure, to the natural 
feeling and discretion of Christians. 

Such being the state of the case, then, with respect to 
the practice itself of infant baptism in Scripture, the 
omission in Scripture of infant baptism, carries with it 
the omission of infant regeneration by baptism. It is 
possible indeed that without any express mention of 
infant baptism, some Scriptural statement might still 
prove the regeneration of infants «f baptized. But no 
such statement occurs. We find in Scripture a general 
connexion of regeneration with baptism; but after thus 
generally connecting this grace with this sacrament, and 
mentioning faith and repentance as the conditions of 
receiving this grace in the case of adults, the New Tes- 
tament stops short, and does not inform us of the rela- 
tions in which those stand to this sacrament, who from 
tender age are incapable of fulfilling these conditions. 

Various attempts have indeed been made to extract 
from this general language of Scripture, in which re- 
generation figures as the grace of baptism, the particular 


26 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. 


result that infants are regenerate in baptism; but none 
with any success. This general language of Scripture 
has, because it is general, appeared to some to be “ un- 
limited,” and that baptism ‘is the washing of regene- 
ration,’ has been considered to imply in its very meaning 
as a phrase or statement, that baptism is this to all who 
are baptized.? But such a logical inference is plainly 
untenable, because it cannot be maintained, and is not in 
fact maintained by those who draw this very inference, 
that everybody who is baptized is regenerate, whatever 
be his personal state and condition. Indeed such a mode 
of treating Scripture language proceeds upon a misap- 
prehension altogether of the force of general or inde- 
finite statement, which can connect a benefit with a 
particular ordinance without following that connexion 
into particulars. Jt may be true that we have no right 
to “restrain”? such language, but neither on the other 
hand have we the right to give it definite extension 
beyond the cases of application which are given. 
Assuming, then, on the ground of the evident con- 
nexion of the two in Scripture, that regeneration is re- 
presented in Scripture as the grace of baptism, we must 
bear in mind that what we are concerned with now is 
another and a further question, relating to the recipients 
of such grace. The grace of the sacrament is one thing, 
who receive it is another. Supposing that baptism con- 
veys regeneration to qualified persons, who these qualified 
persons are, and in particular whether all infants are 


9“ Where the language of Holy Scripture is unlimited we are 
not to restrain it. But Holy Scripture speaks universally ; it says 
‘The washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy 
Ghost,’ ‘born of water and of the Spirit... .’ Scripture pro- 
nounces baptism absolutely to be ‘the washing of regeneration and 
renewal of the Holy Ghost ;’ and what Scripture calls it it must 
remain, at all times, and however applied to infants as well as to 
adults.” ‘ Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism,” p. 63. 


Cuar. II] as contained in Scripture. 27 


such, is altogether a further question, which must be 
decided by reference to the rules and conditions of the 
institution of baptism, so far as we are informed about 
them. Consider the case of the other sacrament. The 
assertion of the grace of the Hucharist does not imply 
more than that a certain grace attaches to that sacra- 
ment as such, leaving the question who are the recipients 
of such grace to subsequent decision. 

There is indeed one theory according to which these 
two positions are identical, and the admission of the 
grace of the Sacrament of Baptism is the simultaneous 
admission that all infants are recipients of such grace; 
the theory, viz., which has been expressed in the dictum 
““sacramenta semper suum effectum habere non ponenti 
obicem.”’ It appears to some to follow logically from the 
fact of a sacrament conferring grace at all, that it con- 
fers it upon all who do not interpose any obstacle to the 
reception of it; it beg assumed that infants do not or 
cannot do this; upon which theory it follows that the 
particular position about infants is contained in the 
general one about the grace of the sacrament. But can 
we admit the correctness of such reasoning? We can- 
not, in the first place, assume that infants do not present 
any obex to the reception of the grace of baptism, be- 
cause they do not present the obex of personal sin:! 
inasmuch as the doctrine of original sin represents them 
as having, though physically unable to commit actual sin, 
sin of some kind in them, which has been transmitted by 
birth; as prior to baptism children of wrath, lying 
under the Divine curse, and polluted by an internal 
though undeveloped source of corruption. That beings 
in this state are, on account of the absence of personal 
sin, qualified for receiving the grace of baptism, cannot 


1“ Responde prius quis ad baptismum innocens veniat, excepto 
illo,’ &c. Augustine contra Literas Petiliani, 1. 2, c. 101. 


28 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. 


be taken for granted, unless it is so declared in Scrip- 
ture. In the next place, were it true that infants pre- 
sented no obea to the reception of the grace of baptism, 
we could not still infer with any certainty that such 
a negative condition was qualification enough for this 
grace; because it must be remembered that the absence 
of personal sin in infants is quite a different thing from 
the same freedom in adults. The absence of personal 
sin is in adults positive goodness, in infants it is only a 
physical incapacity for action by reason of the immaturity 
of nature. But that such a neutral condition as this is 
an adequate qualification for the grace of baptism cannot 
be assumed, unless it is so declared in Scripture. 

The Sacrament of Baptism, then, admitted to possess 
erace, it still depends upon the laws and conditions of the 
institution of that sacrament who receive that grace. 
Nor can this question of the recipients be decided by 
logical inference from the first position; but it is a 
question of fact to be settled by reference to the proper 
sources of information on the subject. We do not admit, 
for example, that because the Sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper confers grace, it therefore confers grace upon 
infants. This ference does indeed appear to have pre- 
vailed at one period, and to have dictated, even in the 
West, an extensive practice of Infant Communion,? 
which established itself permanently in the Hastern 
Church; but it has not been generally acknowledged. 
It is true that Baptism is an initiatory sacrament, but the 
conditions of an initiatory sacrament can no more be 
decided by such reasoning than those of another. 

Now in this state of the case one side fills up the 
omission of Scripture in one way, another in another. 
Some fill up the void with the statement that infants, as 
such, receive regenerating grace in baptism, upon the 


2 Waterland on Infant Communion, vol. vi. p. 41. 


Cuap. II.] as contazned tn Scripture. 29 


ground that the infantine state in infants is an equivalent 
to faith and repentance in adults. Others fill it up quite 
differently, by converting the omission of the effect of 
baptism upon infants, as such, into a denial of it. The 
omission of Scripture is thus on both sides converted 
into a statement, either affirmative or negative, which is 
on either side to exceed the limits of the written word. 
Those who put the infantine state in infants, and faith 
and repentance in adults, ona par as conditions of baptism, 
may assert something to which on abstract grounds there 
is no objection; still the important difference remains, 
that Scripture does mention faith and repentance as con- 
ditions of baptismal grace, and does not mention the 
infantine state itself as such a condition. Those again 
who deny all conditions but faith and repentance, can 
allege that no others are mentioned in Scripture; still the 
important difference remains, that Scripture does not 
deny, but only omit other conditions. 

It is upon these two interpretations of Scripture that 
the two great schools of doctrine on this subject, which 
may, in broad terms, be called the school which preceded 
the Reformation, and the school of the Reformation, have 
been founded. ‘The school which preceded the Reforma- 
tion, comprehending the fathers and the schoolmen, 
maintained that the infant, as such, was qualified for the 
grace of baptism, the infantine state being considered an 
equivalent in infants to faith and repentance in adults.’ 
And the basis of this position was a division between 
infants and adults, that adults stood upon one ground 
with respect to baptism, and infants upon another; that 
the grace of the sacrament was in the one case con- 


‘Though this position was modified in some quarters by a 
limitation of the infant’s benefit in baptism to the negative part of 
the baptismal gift or remission of sin, as distinguished from the 
positive or renovative. See Note 14. 


30 The Doctrine of Baptism so far |Parv I. 


ditional, in the other unconditional. The divines of the 
Reformation, on the other hand, discarded this double 
principle, and insisted upon a simplification of the bap- 
tismal scheme, which would bring the whole operation of 
it under one law. They maintained that the grace of 
baptism was always conditional, and that mfants and 
adults stood upon the same ground—one, and one only, 
qualification of baptism being mentioned in Scripture, 
viz. that of faith and repentance. Under this scheme, 
then, the infant had to be connected with faith and re- 
pentance, and brought under the head of an adult, before 
he could be pronounced a partaker of baptismal grace. 
And for this purpose two principal arrangements were 
made, one that baptism was in the infant’s case an antici- 
patory rite, and was only attended by grace when its 
recipient as an adult believed and repented ; the other 
that the certain seed of a future faith was implanted in 
some infants by Divine grace previously to baptism, 
which, counting for the actual grown quality, made them 
at the tyme persons fit and qualified for the grace of 
baptism. The latter is the theory of “prevenient grace,” 
which was not a gratuitous hypothesis of the Reformation 
divines, proceeding from mere fancy, but an integral part 
of a plan for the admission of the infant to the grace of 
baptism, in consistency with alleged Scriptural rule and 
law. Prevenient grace is by universal admission neces- 
sary for the regeneration of adults in baptism, because 
without this prevenient grace they cannot have faith, 
which is the condition of their regeneration. Prevenient 
grace was, according to the Reformation divines, neces- 
sary for the regeneration of infants as well, and for the 
same reason, viz. because without it they could not have 
faith—in their case a seminal faith. 

The principle of this whole later scheme was equality 
between the infant and adult in regard to baptism. Why, 


Cuap. II.] as contained tn Scripture. 31 


it was asked, should infants be placed in so much more 
advantageous a position than adults with respect to bap- 
tism, as that they should be certain of regeneration by 
the simple fact of being baptized, while adults have only 
the same grace by the fulfilment of express conditions? 
Such ipso facto reception of the grace was not necessary 
for the virtue and efficacy of the sacrament; was it the 
right or due of the infant partaker? Analogy seemed 
rather to point to some equalizing rule which would 
arrange a substantial identity of the terms of regenera- 
tion, only differing according to the difference of age. 

Between these extreme positions then, that of dogma- 
tically claiming for infants, as such, the grace of regene- 
ration in baptism, and that of dogmatically denying it to 
infants as such, a middle course is open, viz. that of 
leaving the omission in Scripture as it stands, and 
acquiescing in an absence of positive doctrine on the 
subject." 

The regeneration of infants, as such, in baptism may 
be seen to be a position supplementary to and additional 
to Scripture, the more clearly, perhaps, if for the term 
regeneration, the association of which with infants custom 
has rendered so familiar, we substitute justification. The 
substitution of this term makes no difference to the 
reasoning in the present case, because justification, or the 
Divine act by which sin ceases to be imputed to us, is an 
integral part of regeneration; so that, on the supposition 
that infants, as such, are regenerate, they are also justified 
in baptism.® But the doctrine of Scripture is that we are 


4 Note 3. 

5 “ Justificatio est revera regeneratio.” Luther, Op. i.p. 388. 

“‘ Regeneration is the spiritual grace of baptism in reference to 
the change in ourselves, whereas justification is the spiritual grace 
of baptism in reference to our reconciliation with God.” Bp. 
Marsh’s second Letter to Simeon, p. 20. 


32 Lhe Doctrine of Baptism so far | Parr I. 


justified by faith; and though some interpret this faith as 
including works, and others reject this interpretation, all 
agree in accepting as the condition of justification men- 
tioned in Scripture, an act or state of mind which, we 
know, can belong only to adults, and of which infants are 
incapable. Most persons would indeed, I think, admit 
that justification without faith was a strange notion, on 
being first placed before them; and that it carried a 
difficulty with it as not being in the line of Scripture 
language. Nor could they well help this impression, 
because Scripture only contemplates forgiveness as apply- 
ing to the actual sins of moral agents who are capable of 
faith, and therefore cannot be pardoned without it; the 
application of which forgiveness, therefore, to the case of 
those who, as not being moral agents, are capable neither 
of actual sin nor faith, is a position supplementary to 
Scripture; though it is a position which has the sanction 
of antiquity, which filled up the void in Scripture with 
the positive statement of the justification of all infants in 
baptism. . 

Luther was vastly perplexed by the difficulty of recon- 
ciling infant justification in baptism with his own great 
doctrine of justification by faith, and in order to meet it 
went almost to the extravagant length of asserting that 
infants had literal and actual faith excited in them by an 
act of Divine power, to qualify them for justification in 
the sacrament.° The Wittemberg Conference drew a 
more moderate assertion from him of their endowment 
with “‘afaith according to their capacity and measure ;”’ ’ 
but the true existence of faith in the infant was still 
insisted on as the essential condition of his justification, 
and many Lutherans for a long time clung to the older 


6 Note 4. 
7“ Tnitium quoddam fidei in infantibus extare, secundum ipsorum 
mensuram et modulum.” Bucer, Angl, Script., p. 656. 


Cuap. II.] as contarned in Scripture. 33 


language of their founder.* The great controversies on 
justification in our own Church have all along assumed 
faith, in the narrower or larger sense, as the condition of 
man’s justification; the case of those who from natural 
immaturity cannot possess faith, being either left out of 
the calculation altogether or treated as an exceptional 
case, which God provides for in an extraordinary manner. 
“God is the donor,” says Waterland, “‘and He can 
dispense the grace to some without faith as to infants, 
and to others without baptism, as to martyrs principally, 
and to catechumens prevented by extremities; but still 
the ordinary rule is first to dispense it upon a true and 
lively faith, sealed with the stipulations mutually passed 
in baptism.” ® Infant justification is here regarded as an 
exceptional appendage to the regular Divine method, and 
the want of faith is put on the same ground as the want 
of baptism, as a want, viz., which in certain cases is 
supplied in an extraordinary way. 

This want in infants, then, of express Scriptural quali- 
fication for justification applies equally to that of which 
justification is an integral part, viz. to their regeneration, 
which, without faith and repentance, is a supplement to 
Scripture, as is their justification without either. 

Not that by the expression, “‘ supplement of Scripture,” 
it is meant that such a supplement is presumptuous, or 
one that we are forbidden to make, or that it is not in 
itself true and correct. The same Providence which has 
left unfinished doctrine in Scripture has also endowed us 
with that reason which moves us,—and within certain 
limits innocently,—to build further to it, as we think 


’ “Tamen Lutherani hodie non contenti hac mitiore expositione 
actualem in pueris fidem constituunt.” Whitaker, Prelect. de 
Sacr., p. 284. 

«Summary View of the Doctrine of Justification,” vol. vi. 
p- 12. See Note 6. 

D 


34 The Doctrine of Baptism so far {Parr I. 


appropriately and considerately ; but such supplement is 
still no integral part of revelation. 

A neutral conclusion, however, on this subject will not 
be allowed to pass without some objections. 

1. It may appear an anomaly then that, when to the 
Divine foreknowledge it was certain that the baptism of 
infants was going to become with the spread of Christianity 
the general rule and that of adults the exception, we 
should be so much better informed of the relation of 
adults than of that of infants to this ordinance. But to 
this objection the general answer may be made which is 
made to the same kind of objection in other cases, viz. 
that we are no judges beforehand upon such a question. 
Such a combination of information with want of informa- 
tion as to the operation of a sacrament, is. not out of 
analogy with the general course of Divine revelation in 
the dispensations alike of nature and of grace. On how 
many subjects connected with the invisible world does the 
Bible tell us something, and then suddenly stop short, — 
leaving off, as it were accidentally, with partial and 
fragmentary truth? And this general answer receives 
additional weight when we take into consideration what 
was mentioned above, that the practice of infant baptism, 
though unquestionably divinely foreknown in its full 
extent as almost wholly superseding adult, is still no 
essential part of the institution of baptism, but only the 
particular shape which it has taken in its practical work- 
ing in the Christian world. 

2. Another objection to a neutral position respecting 


1 «To us, to the vast majority of the Church, since the day that 
the writer of the Epistle wrote those words under the guidance of 
the Holy Spirit foreknowing that state of things, the doctrine 
of baptism is the doctrine of Infant Baptism; in that shape, 
practically, it concerns us.” Lord Lyttelton’s Tract on Infant 
Baptism. 


Cuap. II.| as contained in Scripture. 35 


the regeneration of infants as such, comes in the form of 
an appeal to our consistency : for why baptize infants at 
all, it may be said, when we have no certain information 
that they receive at the time the beneficial effect of 
baptism ? But it can be no sufficient reason for not 
baptizing infants that we do so with partial knowledge, 
or want of absolute information. If natural feeling, 
religious instincts, and the analogy of the older dispensa- 
tion are all in favour of admitting infants to the initiatory 
rite of a Divine covenant, we are, in the absence of 
prohibition, justified in doing so. 

- This particular objection, however, may assume the 
more formidable shape of a doubt thrown upon the whole 
subsequent baptismal state of those who are baptized in 
infancy; on the ground that, as persons cannot be 
baptized again, if baptism is administered to them, when 
it is not certain that they receive the grace of it, the 
same doubt cleaves to their state ever after. I shall 
reserve this question for another chapter, but in the 
mean time I shall take for granted, what the whole 
history of baptism from its first institution abundantly 
proves, that this is an incorrect assumption; and that 
the supposition, even if made, that infants are not 
regenefate by baptism at the time, does not hinder but 
that they are regenerate by virtue of that same baptism 
afterwards, upon fulfilling the required conditions. 

The general statement then of the baptismal question, 
so far as this chapter goes, may be summed up as 
follows :— 

1. To state in the first place what the doctrine is, con- 
cerning the presence or absence of which in Scripture we 
are now inquiring. It is not the doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration generally, which is assumed, but the position 
that all infants are regenerate in baptism. The identity 
of these two positions has indeed been assumed in recent 

D2 





36 The Doctrine of Baptisn so far {Parr I. 


controversy, the one having been taken to mean the 
other; so that, had any one spoken of the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration in any other meaning than that of 
the regeneration of all infants in baptism, he would have 
been regarded as using words in a non-natural sense, and 
adopting an outward phraseology with an inward reserve. 
But, though the verbal question is not important, it must 
be seen that these are in reality two distinct positions,— 
that of baptismal regeneration, or that baptism confers 
regeneration upon qualified persons, and that infants are 
qualified persons. 

The question of a sacrament possessing a particular 
grace is decided not by the fact who are the recipients of 
that grace, but by such a grace attaching to it as a 
sacrament—the way in which we decide this point in the 
case of the Eucharist. It is true, that if we are in 
addition informed that such a class of persons are reci- 
pients, this additional fact becomes a part of the true 
doctrine relating to that sacrament; but, in the absence 
of such information, we cannot insert a fixed class of 
recipients—such as, e.g.,in the present case imfants— 
in the essence of the sacrament, and incorporate it with 
its substance and basis. 

2. To state with still further accuracy what the doctrine 
is which we are inquiring about, it is that of the regene- 
ration of dnfants, as such, i.e. as distinguished from the 
same infants grown up to years of discretion. This 
distinction is important because, on the supposition that 
an infant is not regenerate as such in baptism, he may | 
still be regenerate afterwards, as an adult, by virtue of 
the same previous baptism; nor with any more doubt 
attaching to his case, than what necessarily attaches to 
all cases in which personal conditions have to be fulfilled, 
the same doubt which must always attach to adult 
baptisms. 


Cuap. II.] as contained in Scripture. a 


3. There being two modes of proof by which the 
regeneration of infants, as such, in baptism, might be 
established as a doctrine of Scripture; one its express 
mention in Scripture, the other the extraction of it by 
logical inference from the general doctrine of baptism in 
Scripture ; of these two the former is absent, the latter 
is an incorrect application of reasoning. 

4, On the assumption that baptism does not convey 
regeneration to infants at the time, it still is not a barren 
form, for it conveys a pledge of and title to regeneration 
upon certain conditions fulfilled, and so transfers the 
infant out of a wholly natural and uncovenanted state, as 
will appear more clearly in the next chapter. 

5. The real difference between the baptismal state of 
infants upon this supposition and upon the other is not 
so great as might at first be thought. Upon the one 
supposition they have regeneration from the moment of 
baptism, but they are only in an elementary stage of the 
state, till it is developed by action; upon the other they 
have from the same date a conditional pledge to the full 
state, which the same course of action secures; this 
pledge being also accompanied by a preparatory grace, 
such as that which the catechumens of the early Church 
enjoyed, and which partakes of the true nature of Gospel 
grace. 

The main question, however, which has been decided 
in this chapter, is a question of fact relating to Scripture, 
viz. that Scripture asserts nowhere, either explicitly or 
implicitly, the regeneration of infants in baptism. 
Without neglecting the consideration of consequences, 
it must still be remembered that no appeal to them can 
undo or set aside the plain fact of its omission in Scrip- 
ture. Itis impossible, then, with this fact before us, and 
with the rule before us that nothing that is not read in 
Scripture, or may be proved thereby, is to be required of 


38 The Doctrine of Baptism, Se. 


any man that it should be believed as an article of the 
faith, to maintain that the regeneration of infants in 
baptism is an article of the faith. 

It may be said that Scripture may be interpreted 
consistently with this position, and that antiquity does 
so interpret it; but the imposition ofa sense on Scripture, 
which the words only admit of and do not oblige, is not 
proof from Scripture.’ It may appear to some again 
that the omission is accidental, and owing to the circum- 
stance that the most prominent subjects of baptism at 
the first promulgation of the Gospel were, in the nature 
of the case, adults; but the rule of faith, which requires 
proof from Scripture for an article of the faith, looks only 
to the fact of the presence or absence of such proof in 
Scripture, without concerning itself with the reasons.® 
The test which is laid down in this rule of faith is a 
matter-of-fact test. We may seem to ourselves to be able 
to account for the omission of infant baptism in Scripture 
simply and naturally enough, by a reference to the cir- 
cumstances: under which the writings of the New Testa- 
ment were composed, the state of things which accompanied 
the first preaching of the Gospel, when the conversion of 
adults was necessarily the most conspicuous and important 
work ; and we may then explain the omission of infant 
regeneration in Scripture by the omission of infant 
baptism in Scripture. But if we think we can explain 
the second of these omissions by the first, and the first 
by something else, this cannot undo the fact of these 
omissions; and the fact of the absence of proof in 
Scripture is all that we are concerned with in the appli- 
cation of this rule of faith. 


peti $ (Pea: 


CHAPTER III 
THE BAPTISMAL CHARACTER 


OnE reason which has undoubtedly contributed much to 
the assumption of infant regeneration in baptism, as a 
necessary part of the doctrine of baptism, is an inference 
which is drawn respecting the condition of all those who 
have been baptized in infancy, if this assumption is not 
allowed; the inference, viz. which was noticed at the 
end of the last chapter, that if it is allowed to be doubtful 
whether such persons received the grace of baptism at 
the actual time of being baptized, a doubt must attach 
to their baptismal condition ever after.’ Such a result 
would of course unsettle the baptismal condition of nearly 
the whole Christian world; and, nobody being prepared 
to allow this uncertainty, the inference is drawn that the 
regeneration of infants as such cannot be permitted to 
rank as an open question, but must be considered as part 
and parcel of the fundamental doctrine of baptism. 

It is, however, a principle testified to in Scripture, 
and universally maintained in the Christian Church from 
the first, that the grace of baptism does not depend upon 
the personal state or condition of the baptized person 


1 “To all the promises and descriptions of baptism apply to 
Infant Baptism? Certainly, unless they did in effect, Infant 
Baptism were wrong; for so we should be depriving our children of 
whatever benefits it were supposed that Adult Baptism conferred, 
and Infant Baptism was incapable of.” Scriptural Views of Holy 
Baptism, p. 63. 


40 The Baptismal Character. [Parr l, 





at the time of the administration of the rite, but is re- 
ceived subsequently, upon the proper conditions of it 
being fulfilled. This law, or modus operandi of the sacra- 
ment, is connected with its fundamental character as an 
initiatory rite, which can only be administered once, and 
does not admit of repetition. The law of this sacrament 
would indeed be severe if both of these conditions 
attached to it at once, ie. if together with the rule of 
its institution that it cannot be repeated, the benefit of 
it also altogether hung upon the particular disposition of 
the recipient at the time. Along with the one rule, 
therefore, another also is found to attach to the sacra- 
ment, viz. that of a suspended beneficial effect ; that the 
grace, even if forfeited by unworthiness at the time, still 
remains conditionally attached to the state of the bap- 
tized man, and is received upon his becoming worthy.’ 

It is the same when the state of unworthiness is not 
simultaneous with but subsequent to baptism, and is a 
fall from the previous possession of baptismal grace. As 
in the former case the grace remains suspended till it is 
had, so in the latter it remains suspended after it has 
been lost, to be recovered again upon repentance ; though 
in this case the recovery is not absolutely complete. The 
two cases rest essentially on the same ground, and are 
met by the same law. 

Baptism, correctly administered, has thus one effect 
which is universal and invariable, whatever be the state 


2 The late Mr. Faber (Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, p. 113) 
rejects the principle of suspension as untenable upon the ground 
that “suspension importing non-communication at the time,” and 
communication importing non-suspension, there is no room for this 
middle effect. But this argument altogether misses the point, 
because it just leaves out and does not take cognizance of the very 
idea of suspension, which is thatof a future communication in con- 
nexion with a present act as the condition of it. 


Cuap.III.| he Baptismal Character. 41 


or condition of the baptized person at the time, viz. a 
title to or pledge for the grace of the sacrament upon 
worthiness ; an effect which places him in a certain sense 
in a covenanted state; for the promise of any gift upon 
conditions is a covenant, and therefore one who has the 
promise of regenerating grace upon conditions is in a 
covenanted state, and is taken out of the simple state of 
heathenism. This effect is indeed no more than a con- 
tinuation and extension of the rite itself: still it is on that 
very account something beyond the rite itself. In later 
theology it obtained the formal name of the baptismal 
character, a term which only really stood for this modus 
operandi of the sacrament ;* though the Schoolmen after 
thei: fashion materialized its meaning, and put the cause 
for the effect, assigning the character as the reason for 
the non-repetition of baptism, instead of the non-repetition 
of baptism as the reason for the character.* I retain the 
scholastic name as a convenient one, and one for which 
there is Augustinian authority,’ for this invariable effect 


3 « Character sacramentum est et sacramenti effectus.” Bellar- 
mine, De Effectu Sacr. 1. 2, c. 22. ‘“ Res et sacramentum est 
character baptismalis.” Aquinas, S. T., p. 3, Q. 66, A.1. “ Bap- 
tismus ex communi sententia aliquod sacramentale confert etiamsi 
percipiatur sine fide.... aliquem effectum sacramentalem habet 
preter gratiam.”’ Bellarmine, ibid. 

“Fictione recedente character totum supplet quod sacramentum 
sine fictione faceret.” Bonaventure, t. v. p. 81. 

+ “ Causa quare non potest iterari baptismus est character quem 
imprimit.” Bonaventure, tom. v. p. 75. “ Baptisma non potest 
repeti....sed vera causa non potest assignari hujus discriminis 
nisi character.” Bellarmine, De Effectu Sacr. 1. 2, c. 22. 

5 «Nam si Christiani baptismi sacramentum etiam apud heereti- 
cos valet et sufficit ad consecrationem, quamvis ad vite sternee 
participationem non sufficiat; que consecratio reum quidem facit 
hzereticum extra Domini gregem habentem dominicum characterem,” 
&c. Ep. 98. “Ovem que foris errabat et dominicum characterem 
a fallacibus depredatoribus suis foris acceperat, venientem ad Chris- 


42 The Baptismal Character. [Parr I. 


of baptism, which is, it will be observed, distinguished 
by its very definition from regeneration, existing before 
the possession of and after the loss of the grace of baptism. 

The New Testament nowhere formally states this par- 
ticular effect of baptism. It is clear, however, that those 
who lost the grace of baptism by wilful sin were not, 
according to Apostolic practice, cut off for ever from the 
new Covenant; but on their repentance were treated as 
again partaking of a grace which had only been sus- 
pended by unworthiness, being re-admitted to the Church 
and the state and privileges of Christian brethren. We 
gather no less plainly from Scripture that even when 
baptism was received in the first instance without the 
proper qualifications, and therefore without grace, it 
still gave a conditional title to that grace, and imparted 
a new distinction of some kind. When we read of three 
thousand being baptized in one day by the Apostles, 
and of the admission into the Church of five thousand at 
once on another occasion, we cannot suppose that every 
one of that large number of adults was in a state of 
mind which constituted a qualification for the saving 
grace of baptism; but we cannot reasonably doubt that 
all without exception, in being “ added to the Church,” 
were brought within the Christian covenant, in this sense, 
that they were admitted to a state and a title which dis- 
tinguished them from heathens; and that upon the 


tiane veritatis salutem ab errore corrigi, characterem tamen in ea 
dominicum agnosci potius quam improbari; quandoquidem ipsum 
characterem multi et lupi et lupis infigunt,” &. De Bapt. contra 
Donat. 1. 6,c.1. This effect of baptism, however, he more com- 
monly expresses under the terms—“ integritas sacramenti,” “ veri- 
tas sacramenti,” “ visibilis sanctificatio,” “ Christi baptismus usque 
ad celebrationem,” “Christum induere usque ad Sacramenti per- 
ceptionem,” “ verum baptisma,” “ baptismus sanctus,” “ baptismus 
vivus,” &e. 


Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. 43 


strength of this title every one of them, whatever may 
have been his disposition of mind at the time of being 
baptized, had subsequently upon worthiness the saving 
grace of the sacrament. 

With reference to this point, indeed, another and an 
important consideration comes in, viz. that of the free 
and liberal policy of the new dispensation from the first, 
with respect to the rule and tests of admission into its 
pale. Faith and repentance are undoubtedly laid down 
in the case of adults, as necessary for receiving the grace 
of the sacrament, but the criterion for ascertaining the 
existence of these qualifications in individuals has never 
been a rigid one. The Gospel, in this respect, stands in 
remarkable contrast with the precision of particular sects 
which have aimed at too much perfection in the constitu- 
tion of the visible Church, and have only in consequence 
narrowed and circumscribed their limits as Christian 
bodies, without even really attaining their own object of 
a higher standard,—for no human test can exclude 
hypocrisy. The Gospel plan of admission has been from 
the first large and comprehensive, applying no scrupulous 
touchstone of inward personal qualifications, but content 
rather with the outward hold of men in the first instance, 
trusting to its own power of moulding and disciplining 
them afterwards. Our Lord’s parables describe the area 
of the Christian Church as wide, and the occupation as 
miscellaneous, the tares and the wheat both finding their 
way in together, to await in a large mixed society the 
final division ; and the parting command to the Apostles 
was,— Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost.” Nor, as has been observed, when we come to 
New Testament practice and the scale of Apostolic bap- 
tisms, does this rite at all figure as one designed to be admi- 
nistered with a sparing hand and by the use of nice tests. 


A4 The Baptismal Character. [|Parvl. 


But such a liberal rule of admission as this is alto- 
gether inconsistent with the rigid supposition, that the 
whole future benefit of the new Covenant to the indi- 
vidual should be dependent upon the disposition of mind 
he was in at the particular time of his first admission 
into it. In that case, the practice of baptizing men in 
masses, upon a general desire indeed expressed for the 
sacrament, but certainly without any strict examination of 
individual qualifications, would be attended by the most 
fearful risks, and would indeed be a positive cruelty 
rather than an indulgent or wise policy: for it would be 
the extremity of rashness and precipitation, it would be 
sporting with men’s souls and eternal interests, to invite 
them in crowds to baptism, if a certain inward state of 
mind at that particular time was everything, in the 
absence of which, so to speak, all chance was gone. But, 
indeed, such a supposition as this latter receives no kind 
of warrant from any part of the New Testament; for 
though Scripture, so far as it speaks on the subject, 
attaches moral conditions to the reception of the grace 
of baptism, it attaches no conditions of time, nor ever 
once implies that the grace of baptism, in order to be 
had subsequently to baptism, must have been had simul- 
taneously with it. . 

The Church has followed the liberal rule of Scripture 
in this matter, and the fundamental characteristic of the 
new Covenant as one of mercy has, like a general prin- 
ciple of equity interpreting a civil statute, dictated the 
catholic law of baptism. It was held universally from the 
first, that in the case of the Fictus, or the person who 
received baptism in a state of unworthiness, the grace, 
though not received at the time, was received afterwards 
upon his change of inward disposition. In other words, 
the Church drew a distinction between the grace or salu- 
tary effects of baptism and a title or character which it 


Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. A5 





conferred, by which grace, at the time absent or present, 
the recipient was removed from the position of a heathen. 
The same distinction was applied to the case of persons 
who fell into states of unworthiness subsequently to bap- 
tism which they had received at the time worthily. A 
small party—the Novatian—took a hopeless view of the 
condition of persons, who, having once enjoyed the grace 
of baptism, afterwards fell away from and lost it by wilful 
sin; but the Church recognized a Christian title which 
continued good throughout, even while the grace of the 
sacrament was lost; which title, without any fresh bap- 
tism, re-admitted them to grace upon true repentance. 
This admitted operation of baptism in the case of the 
Fictus became, indeed, the basis upon which other large 
and important baptismal rules in the same direction were 
maintained ; and the Church rested upon it as her argu- 
mentative fulcrum in deciding the point at issue in the 
Cyprianic and Donatist controversies, i.e. in establishing 
the validity of schismatical and heretical baptism. St. 
Augustine appeals to it throughout his anti-Donatist 
works as a settled point, which he could take for granted 
without fear of challenge ; and upon the ground of the 
subsequent profitableness of the baptism of the Fictus 
assumed as universally admitted, argued for the same effect 
the case of the person baptized in schism and _heresy.® 
The two cases were indeed, upon the assumption of cer- 
tain effects of schism, almost identical; the preliminary 
obstacle being in both alike unworthiness in the recipient, 
only occasioned in the one place by personal defect, in the 
other by a want inherent in a position external to the 
Church, outside of which the spiritual disposition of love 
could not be had, inasmuch as it was only within her that 


6 De Baptismo contra Donat. 1. 1, c. 12; 1. 5, c. 20; 1. 6, ¢. 34, 
» and passim. 


46 The Baptismal Character. [Parr I. 





the Holy Spirit operated. The validity of heretical bap- 
tism was thus raised as a superstructure upon the basis 
of the operation of baptism in the case of the Fictus, 
assumed to possess an antecedent undoubted position as an 
established catholic truth. | 
In maintaining this general position with respect to the 
operation of baptism, the Church doubtless did not altoge- 
ther shut its eye to a certain evident expediency, for very 
awkward consequences would have followed upon any 
different ground taken. Any uncertainty attaching to the 
sacramental profitableness of baptism afterwards, if re- 
ceived without faith and repentance at the time, would have 
introduced doubt on the largest scale into the actual mass 
of existing baptisms, would have imperilled the spiritual 
state of thousands, and have infected the whole atmo- 
sphere of Christendom with distrust. Nor probably were 
the limbs of the main position maintained without an eye 
to the effect upon the centre if they were abandoned : and 
the validity of schismatical and heretical baptism may have 
been adhered to the more firmly from the idea that those 
cases, 1f given up, might react upon the baptism of the 
Fictus, or baptism received in a state of sin. It was a 
first principle with the Church to establish the validity of 
baptism upon as plain and matter-of-fact a ground as 
possible, simplifying the tests of it, and relieving it from 
doubt and uncertainty; so as to set people’s minds at 
rest, and leave no room for fears and apprehensions on 
that head. And therefore the two conditions of the 
matter and the words ascertained, nothing was allowed to 
interfere with the validity of baptism, or its subsequent 
profitableness, where the proper conditions were fulfilled. 
But though the Church did not probably shut out prac- 
tical consequences altogether from her view, the doc- 
trine that she laid down was clear and decisive ; and the 
operation of baptism in the case of the Fictus was always 


Cuap. III.] Zhe Baptismal Character. 47 


appealed to as a known, admitted, and universally received 
truth. 

The law that the subsequent grace of baptism does not 
depend on the qualification of the baptized person at the 
time, is thus part and parcel of the doctrine of baptism 
itself ; it dates from the very institution of the sacrament, 
and carries with it the unanimous assent of the Church in 
every age. It is, indeed, this law of baptism which has 
been erroneously expressed by some divines as “ once 
regenerate, always regenerate.” The regenerate state 
may be lost because it is essentially a state of pardon and 
acceptance, which is lost when the person falls into a state 
of sin: but the baptismal character is not lost. 

Waterland draws attention to this distinction between, 
as he expresses it, ‘the baptismal consecration and the 
covenant state consequent,’ and “the saving effect of 
baptism, the new birth or spiritual life,” in the case of 
adults baptized in sin.’ The real and full truth of the 
case I take to lie in the particulars here following :— 
1. It is certain, in general, that the Holy Spirit, some way 
or other, has a hand in every true and valid baptism ; 
God never fails as to His part in an awful sacrament, how- 
ever men may guiltily fail in theirs. 2. The Holy Spirit 
is in some sort offered to all that receive Christian bap- 
tism ; for the very nature of a sacrament requires that 
the sign and the grace should so far go together, and the 
unworthy could not be guilty of rejecting the grace, while 
they recezve the sign, if both were not offered them. 3. 
As the Holy Spirit consecrates and sanctifies the waters 
of baptism, giving them an outward and relative holiness, 
so he consecrates the persons also in an outward and relative 
sense, whether good or bad, by a sacred dedication of 
them to the worship and service of the whole Trinity ; 


7 V. iv. p. 441. 


48 The Baptismal Character. | Parr I. 


which consecration is for ever binding and has its effect, 
either to the salvation of the parties, if they repent or 
amend, or to the greater damnation if they do not. 4. I 
must add that even the unworthy are by their baptism 
put into a Christian state; otherwise they would be as 
mere Pagans still, and would want anew baptism to make 
them Christians. Therefore as they are by baptism trans- 
lated out of their natwral state into the state Christian, 
they must be supposed to have pardon, and grace, and 
Gospel privileges conditionally made over to them, though 
not yet actually applied by reason of their disqualifications : 
a grant which will do them no manner of service, but hurt, 
if they never repent; butif they do repent and turn to 
God, then that conditional grant suspended as it were 
before, with respect to any saving effects, begins at length 
to take place effectually ; and so their baptism which had 
stood waiting without any salutary fruit for a time, now 
becomes beneficial and saving to the returning peni- 
tents.” ° 

The law of baptism then being clear and decisive that 
the profitableness of it does not depend upon the qualifi- 
cations of the baptized person at the time, but commences 
subsequently as soon as those qualifications are obtained ; 
it is evident that the baptism of infants, supposed not to 
have at the time the proper qualifications for the grace of 
baptism, comes strictly and properly under it. For let 
this be supposed of infants, still all that can be said of 
infants, even on this supposition, is that they are human 
persons who are baptized without being qualified at the 
time for the grace of the sacrament ; and as thus described 
the above principle applies strictly to them; and their 
baptism has a suspended grace accompanying it, which 
comes into operation upon their growing up and becom- 


5 V. iv. p. 443. 


Cuap. IlIl.| Zhe Baptismal Character. 49 


ing qualified for it. The principle has been undoubtedly 
laid down in the Christian Church from the first, that the 
grace of the sacrament is not tied to the time of its admi- 
nistration ; that the simultaneity of the signand the thing 
signified is not necessary, but that on the contrary the sign 
may precede the grace by an indefinitely long interval. 

The only answer indeed which I can suppose being 
made to this distinction that infants may not be regene- 
rate in baptism at the time, and yet receive in baptism 
a title to regenerating grace upon becoming afterwards 
qualified for it, is the plea that this title as carrying with 
it a kind of covenanted state, is itself regeneration. But 
to assert this would be simply to misapprehend at the 
very outset the very nature of this title or character, 
which is by its very definition, not regeneration, but only 
a conditional right to it. Regeneration is undoubtedly 
grace, but nothing can be more clear and decided than 
the distinction, maintained by the whole of antiquity and 
pervading all subsequent theology, which separates the 
baptismal character from grace.’ Regeneration is in its 
own nature and at the very time it is given, beneficial, 
being, besides other things, the actual pardon of sin, 
which is a present advantage: but the baptismal cha- 
racter does not remit sin, and is no benefit at the time, 
but only a title to benefit subsequently upon conditions 
fulfilled. Regeneration is only received by the adult upon 
faith and repentance; but the baptismal character is 
received by every baptized person, and even without faith 
and repentance. These two things, therefore, are entirely 
distinct; and that all infants receive the baptismal cha- 
racter in baptism does not at all imply that all infants are 
regenerate in baptism. 

When, then, among other language, the divines of the 


9 Note 6. 


50 The Baptismal Character. 





Reformation held that mfant baptism was an anticipatory 
rite which, though it was not beneficial at the time on 
account of the want of qualification in the recipient, 
became beneficial afterwards’ upon his obtaining that 
qualification, they had a parallel case provided for them 
in antiquity. They were only applying to infants the 
same law and rule of baptism, which the Fathers had 
applied to unqualified adults. The case of the Fictus, 
which had received the unanimous and uninterrupted 
assent of the Church, involved unquestionably the great 
principle just mentioned. The Reformers applied this 
principle to Infant Baptism, nor in doing so did they 
admit that they at all depreciated the virtue of the sacra- 
ment. The identity of time, in the connexion of the sign 
with the thing signified, was the only point affected by 
this arrangement, and that, besides that it was evidently 
no intrinsic or fundamental part of the relation of the 
two, had been completely given up by antiquity in the 
case mentioned. Such a separation in time between the 
_ sacrament itself and the virtue and benefit of it, no more 
derogated from the former as the channel and instrument 
of the latter, m the case of infant baptism, than it did in 
the case of the baptism of the Fictus. 


1 Note 7. 


CHAPTER IV 
REGENERATION CONSIDERED AS REMISSION OF SIN 


Two definitions of Regeneration may be said to divide 
theological opinion; according to one of which it is a 
state of pardon and of actual goodness, according to the 
other a state of pardon and a new capacity only for good- 
ness, or an assisting grace. 

In this state of the case, then, the first observation that 
we make is, that, upon either definition, regeneration is a 
complex thing, consisting of parts of which it is the whole 
or sum; only existing in any person by the presence of 
both those parts, and cancelled if either is absent; those 
parts being, the one, remission of sin past, the other, one 
or other of tke two alternatives just mentioned. It is 
from overlooking this complex character of regeneration 
that various mistakes have been made. We hear of a 
non-beneficial regeneration, which is received by impeni- 
tent adults in baptism ;* but if persons would examine 
what it is which constitutes regeneration, they would find 
that, in the nature of the case, the gift cannot be other- 
wise than beneficial; because, as the res sacramenti of 
baptism, it undoubtedly comprehends the Divine pardon, 
which is in its own nature an advantage and a benefit. 
They would find that for that reason an impenitent adult 
cannot receive regeneration in baptism, inasmuch as that 
would be to suppose sin pardoned without repentance.? 
They would find again that it is not ‘‘once regenerate, 


1 Note 8. 2 Note 9. 
E 2 


52 Regeneration considered as [Parr l. 





always regenerate; because that would be saying, 


“ Once in a state of pardon, always in a state of pardon.” 
The baptismal character is indeed received by impenitent 
adults, and always remains, but the baptismal character is 
not regeneration. 

This preliminary remark, however, made, it will be con- 
venient, in approaching the question of the real or Scrip- 
tural meaning of regeneration, to eliminate, in the first 
instance, from the two antagonistic definitions that which 
is common to both, viz. this particular benefit of remission 
of sin, in order to clear the ground for a comparison of 
the two on the point on which they differ ; and to relieve 
ourselves from the necessity of carrying about with us 
throughout the discussion an extra weight of language, 
caused by the perpetual junction of that which is not with 
that which is in dispute. 

In eliminating, however, from the two rival definitions 
of regeneration, the common benefit of remission of sin, 
we must pause a short time to consider a question relating 
to this particular gift of remission, which bears imme- 
diately upon the main point of difference between the two 
definitions. For whereas the two received definitions of 
regeneration differ in this respect, that one does and the 
other does not make regeneration actual goodness, the 
question may be raised whether this gift of remission of 
sin, which both adopt in common, does not of itself con- 
stitute actual goodness; masmuch as it may be argued 
that a man must be good in the sight of God as soon as 
ever sin is no longer imputed to him, 

What is it then which is involved in remission of sin ? 
In examining the precise effect of remission, and what 
actually takes place in this Divine act, we find that we 
cannot describe this effect, regarded by itself, as being 
more than the removal of an existing impediment in the 
way of the individual’s goodness. It is the nature of sin 


Cuap. IV. |] Remission of Sin. 53 


that, though the act passes away, it leaves a result behind 
it* in that stain upon the soul which we call guilt—a 
result which affects the character even after the act, 
making the character of the individual, so long as this 
guilt attaches to him, bad. The guilt of past sin then 
being an impediment to the present goodness of the indi- 
vidual, remission of sin is the removal of that impediment: 
but the removal of an impediment to goodness is not 
goodness, because the removal of an impediment is only a 
negative thing, whereas goodness is a positive quality, 
and consists in certain actual habits and dispositions, 
which are active and living principles of goodness within 
the soul, producing acts upon the opportunity and power 
being supplied. The individual is by remission relieved 
of a certain effect of his past wrong acts, but has he there- 
fore right habits and dispositions? Has he a present 
inclination to virtue simply on account of such forgiveness 
of past vice? We must see, if we examine the matter, 
that the absence of a certain effect of past wickedness is 
altogether a different thing from the production of positive 
goodness within the soul, that these are in their own 
nature different spiritual facts. And we must also see 
that it is no derogation from the Divine act of remitting 
sin to insist on this distinction; it being no defect in a 
Divine act that it should be the act which it professes to 
be, and not another, and that the end in which it issues 
should be its own appropriate end and no other. 

The Divine act of remission of sin is in its own nature 
then limited to the removal of an effect which has followed 
from past sin, and does not of itself produce the existence 
of actual goodness in the soul. Nor is it true to say that 
the individual is good in the sight of God by virtue of the 
non-imputation of sin simply ; because God sees things as 


8 “Manent peccata reatu, quee preterierunt actu.” Augustine 
contra Jul. Pel. 1. vi. c. 19. 


54 Regeneration considered as [Parr I. 





they are, and if actual goodness is not produced in the 
person by simple remission of sin, actual goodness is not 
perceived in him by God as the effect of such remission. 
The argument might, indeed, at first sight commend itself 
that pardon is an act of love, and that Divine love implies 
goodness in the object of it; but this would be an inference 
drawn from a word which had one meaning in the premiss, 
and another in the conclusion. In one sense God only loves 
the good, but in another sense God’s love is bestowed upon 
the creature as such, of whose welfare it is the desire.* 

It is true that remission of sin in the case of moral 
agents supposes a certain actual goodness in them as the 
condition of it, viz. faith and repentance: but such good- 
ness as being the condition of remission, and therefore 
preceding it, is plainly not the effect of such remission, or 
contained in it as its cause, or constituted by remission of 
sin ;—which is the question with which we are concerned. 

The Schoolmen, who went with their usual minuteness 
into the nature of the Divine gift of remission of sin, were 
particular in drawing attention to this distinction, that 
the non-imputation of sin did not constitute actual good- 
ness. They identified justification indeed with actual 
goodness, but justification, in the Roman and Scholastic 
sense, means more than remission of sin, viz. the actual 
infusion into the creature of good habits, and of the virtues 
of faith, hope, and charity. This infusion, then, of actual 
goodness into the human soul, was decided in the schools 
to constitute such actual goodness, but the simple remis- 
sion of sin was pronounced not todoso. And though 
the doctrine of the later Schoolmen was that infusion of 
virtues and remission of sin went together de facto, in the 
Divine dispensation ; the goodness of the justified person 
was attributed expressly to the infusion and not to the 


4 Note 10. 


Cuap. IV. | Remission of Sin. 55 


remission. A section of the schools indeed went so far as 
to maintain only one Divine act in justification, viz. that of 
infusion of virtues, and with it this result, that so far from 
remission of sin causing actual goodness, on the contrary, 
it was the infusion of actual goodness which caused remis- 
sion of sin, “ extinguishing it by contrary disposition.” ° 

Calvinism,—and the same may be said of Lutheranism, 
—is less decided against the claim of remission of sin to 
constitute actual goodness, and appears at first sight to 
contemplate a point in the life of the soul, at which it is 
good in the sight of God, simply by reason of delivery 
from guilt, viz. when the Divine grace arresting the sinner 
in the midst of his pollution, and conveying to him instan- 
taneously a pardon in full of the past, by this pardon 
justifies him. But justification, in the Calvinistic sense, 
does not coincide with the precise idea of actual goodness 
in God’s sight, being distinguished by the Calvinist him- 
self from that insertion of the habit of holiness and good- 
ness, 1.e. sanctification, which he upholds as a necessary 
accompaniment of justification.6 For by maintaining the 


5 Thorndike, Covenant of Grace, b. 2, c. 30,5.19. ‘“ Vasquez 
acriter contendit remissionem peccati nihil prorsus in re esse, nisi 
infusionem justitiz, tribuitque hanc opinionem quibusdam Roma- 
nensibus.” Forbes’ Considerations, |. 2, de Justif., c. 4. Occham 
on the contrary,—‘ Deus de potentia sua absoluta potest remittere 
culpam et poenam sine infusione gratiz . . . Tamen dico de facto 
quod gratia infunditur, quia hoc sonant auctoritates sacree Scrip- 
ture et dicta sanctorum.” In Lomb. iv. 3. And Bellarmine,— 
“ Reatus poene et offensa possent quidem tolli sine infusione justi- 
tize, nihil enim impedire videtur quo minus possit Deus velle non 
ordinare poenam et condonare offensam, et non habere pro inimico 
illum cui donum habitualis justitiz non concesserit.” De Justifi- 
catione, 1. 2, c. 16. 

6 “Cum justificatione sanctificatio mnecessario conjungitur.” 
Whitaker de Sacr. Q. 5, ¢. 3, p. 146. The Lutheran doctrine is the 
same: “Opera sequuntur justificationem fidei infallibiter.” Luther, 
tom. i. p. 373. 


56 Regeneration considered as { Part I. 


necessity of inward sanctification as the criterion of justi- 
fication, the Calvinist substantially requires more than 
simple pardon as necessary to constitute the man actually 
good in the sight of God. The Lutheran doctrine is the 
same as the Calvinistic. 

The bearing of this negative characteristic of remission 
of sin, viz. that it does not constitute actual goodness, 
upon the case of baptized infants, deserves attention. 
Remission to adults of actual sin presupposes, in the shape 
of faith and repentance, certain actual goodness: but the 
remission to the infant of original sin, not requiring, as in 
the nature of the case it cannot, any such conditions, we 
have in consequence, in the state of the baptized infant, 
simply the effect of remission of sin itself, abstracted from 
adjuncts and accompaniments. What then is the effect 
of this naked and pure remission of sin upon the baptized 
infant? It is evident from the foregoing considerations 
what the effect is not,—that though the infant has of 
course the goodness of natural innocence, he does not 
possess goodness in a moral or theological sense, by reason 
of the remission of original sin. He is free, indeed, from 
personal sin, and he is admitted to Divine favour; but 
neither does the admission into Divine favour,—inasmuch 
as God loves us independently of goodness in us,—neither 
does the absence of personal sin, where this is the effect of 
mere physical immaturity ; nor do both of these together 
constitute actual goodness: in the place of which an im- 
pending and as yet uncertain struggle between concu- 
piscence and grace, the flesh and the spirit, between an 
inherent principle of evil and a latent germinal principle 
of good, forms a morally neutral and indeterminate state 
in the infant to whom original sin is yet remitted. He 
has implanted spiritual faculties of which after-life may 
show either the culture or neglect, but at present his 
character is wholly unformed for good or for evil, and the 


Cuap. IV. | Remussion of Sin. oy 


issue is in suspense, and awaits a future contingency. 
Nor has he by reason of such remission even an implanted 
or seminal habit of goodness. He possesses, therefore, 
in no sense a determinate moral character, and therefore 
is not good in a moral or theological sense. 

The later Schoolmen refused indeed to recognize this 
neutral and indeterminate state in baptized infants, and 
insisted upon the point that they possessed positive 
goodness ; but, as has been said, they assigned them this 
goodness as the consequence of a distinct infusion of 
habits into them, and not as the result of remission of 
original sin. Resting upon the maxim that the remission 
of sin and implantation of goodness, though in the abstract 
separable, always went together de facto in the Divine 
economy, in the same way in which the Calvinist asserts 
that justification and sanctification go together, they 
maintained that, together with the remission of original 
sin in baptism, the infant had also the habits of faith, 
hope, and charity infused into him. Nor was the refusal 
in this case to separate a state of pardon from a state of 
actual goodness an unnatural and unreasonable refusal, 
had the pardon which is supposed in this case been a 
pardon of the natural and comprehensible kind; for 
certainly when a being enjoys the Divine pardon in the 
natural and comprehensible sense, it is only reasonable 
to conclude that he is in a state of positive goodness. 
But the pardon which is here supposed as the privilege 
of the baptized infant, viz. remission of original sin, is 
not pardon in the ordinary and natural, but in an incom- 
prehensible sense ; because the sin being incomprehensible 
sin, the forgiveness of it is incomprehensible forgiveness 
—a distinction which accounts for the forgiveness of the 
infant being without the moral accompaniments of the 
forgiveness of the adult. 

If we adopt the Scholastic notion, then, of the im- 


58 Regeneration considered, Sc. 





plantation of the actual habit of goodness in the infant, 
that is another and a distinct ground on which to lay the 
infant’s claim to moral or personal goodness; but the 
remission of original sin is no ground for this claim; it 
does not give him moral character, or therefore make him 
good in a moral sense. He is as yet an unformed being 
in moral respects, and his condition is neutral, suspended, 
and as yet undetermined either to good or evil. Anglican 
divines are unanimous on this point, viz. that remission 
of origirfal sin does not constitute actual goodness. They 
maintain the remission of original sin in baptism, but 
they entirely reject at the same time the idea that the 
baptized infant is good in a moral sense; they regard him 
as incapable of possessing such goodness, because they 
regard him as incapable of possessing moral character in 
any sense,—although a pardoned being, having received 
remission of original sin.’ They look upon him as a- 
being endowed with latent moral faculties, the use or 
neglect of which in after-life will determine then his 
character either for good or evil; but as a being at 
present neither good nor bad morally, but in a state 
altogether neutral and indeterminate. 


“ “He may question me respecting the regeneration of infants, 
whether or not I believe that a moral change takes place in them. 
Without the slightest hesitation, however, I answer I do not; and 
for this plain reason, because I am persuaded the thing itself is 
impossible ; morality and immorality being alike incompatible with 
their state of being.” Abp. Lawrence, Efficacy of Baptism, Part ii. 
p- 25. ‘Infants are indeed sanctified in a certain sense, but notin 
the sense of proper renewal of mind and heart.” Waterland, Sum- 
mary View of Justification, vol. vi. p. 7. It must be observed, 
however, that this neutral state of the infant is no obstacle to his 
salvation, if he die as an infant; it being in the power of God in 
the act of admitting him to eternal life to bestow such supplemen- 
tary qualifications as are necessary for that new state of existence. 


CHAPTER V 
SCRIPTURAL SENSE OF REGENERATION 


In a preceding chapter it appeared that Scripture was 
silent on the subject of the regeneration of infants, as 
such, in baptism. The question, however, with which 
we are concerned is not whether any infants are regenerate 
in baptism, but a very different one—whether all are. 
But on this latter question an additional consideration 
arises. | 

For can the term “regenerate”’ in its true meaning, 
as used in Scripture, be applied consistently with the 
facts of our experience to all baptized infants? This is 
an important question, and to answer it we must first 
ascertain what is the Scriptural sense of the term, which 
will be my object in this chapter. 

All agree then that regeneration involves a true power 
to possess holiness and goodness; but is it not also 
described in Scripture as implymg more than this, viz. 
goodness and holiness itself? . 

The term regenerate only occurs a few times in the 
New Testament, twice in the substantive shape of ‘‘re- 
generation,’ once as a verb, if we are to adopt our 
English translation of yervn?7 dvwGev in John in. 3, and 
once as a participle. But we need not infer from thence 
any scarcity of Scripture language to decide the meaning 
of this term, because confessed synonyms abound in the 
New Testament, the meaning of which is partly by the 


60 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Part I. 


Synonymous terms themselves, and partly by their con- 
text, made sufficiently clear and evident. 

The principal synonym, then, which stamps the mean- 
ing of “regenerate,” or “ born again,” is the expression 
“born of God” or “child of God.” It is confessed on 
all sides that these two expressions, “ born again” and 
“born of God,” mean exactly the same thing, and are 
convertible terms; one who is born again, being in the 
nature of the case born of God; because, the first birth 
being from man, the second birth must, by virtue of the 
very contrast, be from God; so that the two are sub- 
stantially one and the same term.’ 

Assuming the complete identity then of these two 
terms, I shall observe, in the first place, that the term 
“child of God” in Scripture is not an isolated one, but 
that it belongs to a class of expressions; and that the 
meaning which attaches to the class fixes the meaning of 
this individual specimen of it. The phrase “son of,” 
when used as a phrase in Scripture, and out of its literal 
signification, expresses a similarity of character in the 
person who is called the son, to the other whose son he 
is said to be, whether the likeness involve good or evil. 
The phrase assumes that the offspring is like the parent, 
not only in nature, but in character,—a fictitious assump- 
tion, but one which serves for a phraseological purpose. 
A “son of valour” is a courageous man; a “son of 
thunder” is a vehement and energetic man; a “son of 


* “Born of God, i.e. regenerate.” Scriptural Views of Holy 
Baptism, p. 18. The term ‘ child of God” is used in the Catechism 
obviously as an equivalent to “ regenerate,” whichis the term used 
in the Baptismal Service. 

In using therefore in this treatise the terms “ regenerate,” and 
‘ regeneration,” I use the former term as the head of the class of 
Scriptural terms and synonyms, “born of God,” “ Son of God,” 
&c.; and the latter term as the substantive of the former. 


Cuap. V.] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 61 


Belial,” or wickedness, is a bad man; a “child of dis- 
obedience”’ is a disobedient man. A “child of Abraham” 
is one who resembles Abraham in faith and obedience; a 
‘child of the devil” and a “ child of hell” is one who 
resembles the devil and the occupants of hell, in malice 
and wickedness. The “children of light” and the 
** children of darkness,” the “ children of the world” and 
the ‘‘ children of the resurrection’”’ the “ children of the 
kingdom ”* and the “children of the wicked one,” are 
those who are respectively like light and darkness, this 
world and the eternal world, the powers of heaven and 
the powers of hell, in character. A ‘‘son of wrath” 
and a “son of perdition”’ have a cognateness rather than 
a likeness to “wrath” and “ perdition.”” The phrase is 
not always used with complete exactness, but it invariably 
denotes an actual character good or bad, and not only a 
capacity for good or evil. <A “child of the devil” is not 
a man who has the power to be wicked—in which case 
every man who was a free agent would be a child of the 
devil—but an actually wicked man. ‘The phrase “son 
of” thus attributes to the person to whom it is applied, 
not only a power to copy a certain type, good or bad, 
but an actual expression and representation of the type. 
If the particular phrase “child of God,” then, or 
“born of God,” carries on the analogy of the class, it 
undoubtedly means an actually good man, one who is like 


? When our Lord speaks of “the children of the kingdom who 
shall be cast into outer darkness” (Matt. viii. 12), it is evident that 
He does not mean those who are really the children of the king- 
dom, inasmuch as He Himself declares that “ the good seed are the 
children of the kingdom” (Matt. xiii. 38); but only those who pro- 
fessed to be such, “‘ who took themselves to be the children of the 
kingdom.” Lightfoot, vol. i. p.569. Some suppose a Scriptural 
secondary sense of “ kingdom of heaven,” viz. as the Visible Church 
(Beveridge, Serm. 35), which is regarded as the “kingdom of 
heaven” by profession. 


62 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Part I. 


God in character. The term “child of God” can no 
more mean one who has simply the power of attaining 
virtues, than “ child of the devil’? can mean one who hag 
simply the power of contracting vices. Goodness is not 
indeed the only attribute of God in which men can im- 
perfectly resemble Him, for they may resemble Him in 
power; and the verse in the eighty-second Psalm, “I 
have said, Ye are gods$ and ye are all the children of 
the Most Highest,” has generally been considered by 
divines to have been spoken of rulers or princes, in 
accordance with the classical expression, Acoyeveis 
Baowjes. Nor perhaps does the whole of poetry contain 
a more vivid outbreak of conscious royalty than the 
utterance of David upon first ascending the throne of 
Israel, when he represents the voice of God addressing 
him, “ Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.” 
But though the phrase “ son of God” may in rare cases 
express a likeness to another attribute of God than that 
of goodness, 1t always expresses an actual likeness to God, 
and not only the power of attaiming such likeness. And 
this is the sense in which our Lord uses the term “ Son 
of God,” viz. as implying an actual resemblance to the 
Divine Goodness. “If God were your Father,” He tells 
the Jews, “ye would love Me. . . . He that is of God, 
heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because 
ye are not of God.””* And in the Sermon on the Mount 
He says, ‘‘ Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, 
do good to them that hate you; that ye may be the 
children of your Father which is in heaven.”* In one 
sense indeed, which is only an extension of the literal 
one, we are sons of God by virtue of creation, as we are 
sons of our parents by natural generation; but the 
metaphorical phrase “child of God” expresses always 


> John vii. 42, 47. + Matt. v. 44, 45. 


Car. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 63 


an actual likeness to God, and, as a general rule, a like- 
ness to Him in respect of goodness and holiness. 

But we have not to do in the present argument with 
the term “born of God” or “child of God” simply, but 
with the term as used in a particular connexion, and 
under particular circumstances. We have to do with 
this term as expressing a certain change which takes 
place in the soul under a new and spiritual dispensation. 
Our Lord in the saying “ that which is born of the flesh 
is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” 
points distinctly to a remarkable inward change of some 
kind, which is produced by the Holy Spirit under the 
Gospel dispensation; and the Hpistles constantly refer 
and appeal to this change as the most important one in 
the whole life of the soul, and the basis of all hopes of 
eternal happiness. The question, then, with which we 
are concerned is not what the term “born of God” means 
as a term simply, but what it means when it is used in 
this connexion, and to express this change; and on this 
head Scripture is clear, full, and decisive. We are not 
left to collect the meaning of the term “born of God” 
from the general analogy of the phrase, or the principle 
upon which the class of phrases is founded ; but we have 
positively and directly described to us what a “son of 
God” is, his distinctive qualities and characteristics, and 
what it is which constitutes this sonship. And this it is 
which composes the main evidence of the Scriptural 
meaning of this term. 

Wherever then the New Testament describes a “ child 
of God,” or one who is “born of God,” it mvariably 
describes him as a good and holy person, and describes 
the state as involving these qualities and characteristics. 
“As many as are led by the Spirit of God,” says St. 
Paul, “ they are the sons of God.” And he exhorts the 
Philippians to be “ blameless and harmless, the sons of 


64 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and 
perverse nation.” ‘“ Behold,” says St. John, “ what man- 
ner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we 
should be called the sons of God: therefore the world 
knoweth us not,’ °—knoweth us not, because we are the 
sons of God, and because the sons of God differ wholly 
in life and conversation from the world. “ Every one that 
doeth righteousness is born of God,”’*® says the same 
Apostle. ‘‘ Whatsoever is born of God overcometh the 
world,” ‘ Whosoever is born of God sinneth not, and 
that wicked one toucheth him not.”? “ Whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remaineth 
in him, neither can he sin, because he is born of God.’ ® 
“Tn this the children of God are manifest, and the chil- 
dren of the devil; whosoever doeth not righteousness is 
not of God.”*® ‘He that is begotten of God keepeth 
himself.” “ Hvery one that loveth is born of God.”? 
Words could not declare more plainly that the regenerate 
state involves actual goodness and holiness, and not only 
a capacity for obtaining these qualifications.* 

We get the same result from other terms which are 
used in Scripture as identical in meaning with “regene- 
rate.’ The term “new creature”? obviously means the 
same as “born again,” and the term “ new creature” 
plainly signifies a man of changed heart and life. ‘‘ Dead 
unto sin,” and “alive unto God,” are other expressions 


5 1 John iii 1. 6 1 John ii. 29. 7 1 John v. 4, 18. 
8 1 John i. 9. 7 Vohn 1: 10. ) 4 John yee 
2 1 John iv. 7. 


3 The accuracies of classical scholarship have a questionable 
place in the interpretation of the Greek of the New Testament. 
The distinction, however, between the regenerate state and abiding 
in the regenerate state, even if gained out of the Greek perfect, 
yeyevynrat, is a needless refinement for the purpose of the present 
argument; forif abiding in the regenerate state is actual goodness, 
the regenerate state is actual goodness. 


Cuar. V.| Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 65 


which have the same meaning as “ born again ;” all three 
phrases alike signifying a first life ended, and a second 
life begun ; but there can be no doubt that this death to 
sin and this life to God, are an actual abstinence from 
sin, and actual good living. All three phrases, indeed, 
“born again,” “new creature,” “new man,” mean in 
Scripture what the same kind of phrases mean in the 
common language of mankind. When we say that such 
a one,—referring to somebody who has hitherto borne a 
bad character,—has become “ quite a new man,’ we do 
not mean that he has got a new capacity for alteration of 
character, but that he is an actually altered man. And 
in the same way “ regenerate,” “new creature,” “ new 
man,” in Scripture, do not denote a capacity for goodness 
only, however high and promising a one, but actual good- 
ness. 

Some divines appear indeed to suppose that by exalt- 
ing the capacity for goodness which the Gospel imparts, 
as a capacity, they can supply an adequate and sufficient 
meaning to these phrases. ‘They describe regeneration 
as “the communication or transmission of the nature of 
the second Adam,” “ the grafting into the second Adam,” 
“the reconstruction of humanity in the second Adam,” 
“the communication of Christ’s humanity,” “the re- 
fashioning of our nature in its head and model,” “ the 
reconstruction of humanity at large in Christ’s manhood.” 
But if all that they mean by these phrases, when they 
use them, is that regeneration is the implanting of a new 
capacity for goodness in human nature, this conception 
of regeneration is altogether inadequate, notwithstanding 
the loftiness of the language by which it is covered. For 
a mere capacity for a thing can by no difference in its 
magnitude be made the thing ; the most vicious man may 
possess in the lowest depths of his actual degradation, 
the capacity for the very highest form of goodness; but 

F 


66 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. 


he is not therefore good; and regeneration implies in its 
Scriptural sense actual goodness. 

We get the same result from certain recognized types 
and figures of the new birth. The ablutions of the old 
law were an actual cleansing of the flesh, and therefore 
the antitype is an actual purification of the heart. Cir- 
cumcision was an actual cutting off of the flesh, and 
therefore the antitype is an actual mortification of cor- 
rupt nature. The new birth is, according to St. Paul, 
inward circumcision, and there can be no doubt what 
inward circumcision is. 

This being the natural and obvious meaning, however, 
of Scripture, various reasons are urged in some quarters, 
why these statements of Scripture should not be under- 
stood in their natural and obvious sense. The language 
of St. John especially has, in consequence of its remark- 
able simplicity and decision, become prominent subject- 
matter of explanation, and objections have been raised 
against the literal interpretation of this language, as, 
upon sound principles of exegesis, impossible. 

It is urged, then, that the statement of St. John, that 
“whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,” is 
incapable of a literal interpretation, because according to 
such an interpretation, nobody in the world would be 
regenerate. But this is to judge of the meaning of a 
statement by a totally irrelevant test, viz. whether such a 
statement is exemplified by the present behaviour and 
temper of Christians. The meaning of language is one 
thing, its application to persons around us is another. It 
is no proof that St. John does not mean what he says in 
this statement, that such a meaning is not realized in the 
conduct of Christians in this life. 

It will be replied, however, that the term “ regenerate” 
is a term which is realized m this world, some persons 
being undoubtedly regenerate now and in this life; and 


Cuap. V.] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 67 


that it is not a mere ideal and anticipatory term: and 
that, therefore, we are obliged to understand it in a 
sense which is a different sense from the literal one in 
this statement. But admitting that the term “regene- 
rate” is one which is realized in this world, we are not, 
therefore, obliged to understand it in a different sense 
from the literal one in this statement, but only in a dif- 
ferent degree of the same sense. The perfectly regene- 
ate man is perfectly good; the imperfectly regenerate 
man is imperfectly good; the distinction does not involve 
a different sense of the word, but only more or less ful- 
ness of the same sense. We may see the same difference 
in the use of the word “ good” itself. We have the best 
authority for saying that “there is none good but One, 
that is God ;” and yet we speak of good men. Nor when 
we speak of good men do we use the word “ good” ina 
different sense from its literal one in our Lord’s saying, 
but only in a different degree of the same sense. Good 
is an unrealized epithet according to one standard, a 
realized one according to another; in a perfect degree 
nobody in the world is good, in an imperfect degree many 
are good; but these two standards do not involve any 
different sense of the word “ good,” for good still means 
good, whether it is higher good or lower. In the same 
way the regenerate state admits of degrees, and is an un- 
realized state in one degree, a realized one in another ; 
but this does not involve a different sense of “ regene- 
rate,’ any more than the same distinction involves a 
different sense of “ good.” 

It is true that underneath the broad meaning of the 
term in Scripture as implying actual goodness and holi- 
ness, we do upon a closer examination see variations. 
We see, as has appeared just now, that the regenerate 
state is sometimes spoken of as an unmixed state of good- 
ness, and sometimes as a now realized state of goodness, 

F 2 


68 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


which therefore admits of the mixture of sin. And just 
as we observe two modes of representing it in regard to 
its purity, we may also observe two modes of representing 
this state with regard to its durability. The more pro- 
minent and pervadiug idea of Scripture, perhaps, is the 
indefectibility of the regenerate state; for when the sup- 
position is made of the regenerate state being fallen away 
from and lost, it appears to be made as what we might 
call an extreme supposition. But still the supposition is 
made, and in more than one text; and so far the rege- 
nerate state is represented as a defectible state. But 
whether represented as indefectible or as defectible good- 
ness, the regenerate state still always figures as goodness ; 
nor does the possibility of a fall from it show that it is 
not, but rather that it is a state of actual goodness. For 
a fall or lapse, such as Scripture speaks of, is from a 
state of actual goodness, and is the serious thing it is on 
that very account. 

Though the ideal sense of the term then, which ap- 
pears occasionally in Scripture, is sometimes made an 
argument for explaining away the natural sense of the 
term in Scripture altogether, such an argument is alto- 
gether untenable. The natural meaning of the term in 
Scripture, as involving actual goodness, is not done away 
with because that goodness is sometimes represented as 
perfect and indefectible, and sometimes as imperfect and 
defectible. ‘There can be no reason why a word should 
not sometimes be used in an ideal sense, and sometimes 
in a more practical one. Christians are evidently ad- 
dressed on both grounds in Scripture; sometimes as 
already citizens of heaven, sitting in heavenly places, and 
arrived at the heavenly Jerusalem, so that it is spoken of 
as a kind of impossibility that they should sin, for “ how 
shall they that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?” 
sometimes on the matter-of-fact ground, as persons of a 


Cuap. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 69 


good and spiritual habit of mind for the time being, who 
are however in danger of losing that habit by neglect. 
It is very common for the meanings of words to exhibit 
variations, which variations however do not unsettle that 
general meaning of which they are variations. And with 
variations of meaning, according as it is regarded in a 
higher or lower aspect, the regenerate state in Scripture 
still always figures as actual goodness. 

There appears to be no reason, therefore, for attri- 
buting to the Scriptural descriptions of regeneration as 
actual goodness that which divines call the “ tropolo- 
gical”? sense. The tropological meaning of a term is a 
meaning founded upon a moral use and application of its 
literal meaning. Thus the “ circumcision,” mentioned in 
the second chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, has 
not a literal but a tropological meaning, founded upon a 
moral application of the literal meaning. In like manner, 
it is maintained that the meaning of regeneration in 
Scripture as actual goodness is a tropological meaning ; 
the intended effect of regeneration, used and improved, 
being put for regeneration itself. ‘ Whosoever is born 
of God overcometh the world;” i.e. it is added, if he 
rightly improves that spiritual faculty.* But this is an 
interference with the natural meaning of the words, and 
an interference for which there is no call or reason. The 
received rule of interpretation is, that we should always 
take Scripture in its literal sense where we can; i.e. 
where there is no overwhelming obstacle to such mean- 
ing. But what is the obstacle to the literal meaning in 
the present case? We know nothing about the meaning 
of the term ‘‘ born of God” at all till we come to its use 
in Scripture; and therefore there can be no more objec- 
tion to a meaning of the term implying goodness and 


* Bishop Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration, p. 306. Arch- 
deacon Dodgson’s Controversy of Faith, p. 43. 


70 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. 


holiness, if such is the natural sense of Scripture, than to 
any other meaning. We go to Scripture for the meaning 
of this term, as we should go to any authoritative writing 
for the meaning of any particular word we wanted to 
know, and finding the meaning, we take it as we find it. 
Such interpolations then as this are wholly unwarranted, 
and contrary to the law of Scripture interpretation. The 
tropological sense of a term implies a certain obvious and 
familiar sense in the background, with which it takes the 
liberty in question for a didactic purpose. There is this 
literal meaning in the case of circumcision; but no ori- 
ginal literal meaning meets us in all Scripture of the term 
“born of God,” upon which the sense of actual goodness 
can rest as the tropological meaning. Actual goodness, 
on the contrary, is the first and obvious meaning attach- 
ing to the term. 

But though the attempt to explain away the actual 
statements of Scripture on this subject fail, and the 
natural sense of the language is too clear to be disturbed 
by artificial interpretations, other arguments are still 
resorted to by way of a set-off against these statements, 
in order to counterbalance and neutralize from without 
language which cannot be unsettled or weakened from 
within. One of these arguments is so obviously irrele- 
vant that little more than a notice of 16 is enough. The 
fact that the Epistles abound in exhortation to the re- 
generate is appealed to as showing that regeneration is a 
faculty only, and not actual goodness; the argument 
being, that if it was actual goodness, those who possessed 
it would not need exhortation to goodness. But it is 
evident that the good require exhortation to continue in 
goodness, as the sinner requires exhortation to attain it. 
And this, it may be observed, is the form of practical 
address which prevails in the Epistles, viz. exhortation 
to continue in a state in which those who are addressed 


Cuar. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 71 


are already assumed to be. Christians are addressed as 
having undergone a remarkable change of heart, having 
passed from death to life and from the power of Satan 
unto God, and they are exhorted to abide in this new 
state and habit of mind. The form of exhortation is, 
that because “ the old man has been crucified” in them, 
therefore they ‘‘should not henceforth serve sin;” that 
they have already “ died to sin,” and therefore ‘“ should 
not live any longer therein ;” that “having been made 
free from sin, and become servants to God,” they “ should 
have their fruit unto holiness.” * 

Some arguments, however, on which much stress has 
been laid, as proving that the sense in which the term 
“son of God,” as used in Scripture, does not imply actual 
coodness, will require longer notice. 

1. One is the argument from the alleged appropriation 
of the term “regenerate” to the spiritual change which 
takes place in baptism. Regeneration, it is said, is 
evidently referred to in Scripture as connected with 
baptism ; this connexion being implied in a whole class 
of phrases even where it is not explicitly stated. The 
regenerate state then, it is argued, is distinguished in 
Scripture from actual goodness, and therefore does not in 
Scripture imply actual goodness. 

But there is an evident mistake in such reasoning as 
this, for let it be assumed that regeneration has in Scrip- 
ture a special and appropriate use in connexion with 
baptism, does it, therefore, lose in this connexion the 
meaning which it bore antecedently as a word? ‘The 
laws of language, and the very consistency of language, 
are against such an inference; for why should one word 
rather than another be selected for a special use, but 
because that word has a particular signification which is 


5 Rom. vi. 6, 2, 22. 


72 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. 





wanted for that use? It is plainly not any word which 
will do for such appropriation, but some one word is 
taken in preference to others, on account of its meaning 
asa word. But if that meaning is the reason why it is 
selected, why is that meaning dropped as a consequence 
of its selection? The word “regenerate” then, or 
“born of God,” evidently implying in its meaning as 
a word actual goodness in Scripture, this meaning still 
goes on when the word is appropriated, and regeneration 
in baptism is still regeneration in its antecedent and 
natural sense. 

This is, indeed, a fallacy which pervades the remarks 
of some very respectable divines on this subject. It is 
assumed that if regeneration is distinguished from actual 
goodness, it therefore does not mean actual goodness ; 
but words may, and constantly do, include in their mean- 
ing that from which they are distinguished, retaining a 
general and antecedent meaning, though at the same 
time distinguished from it by a special application. Thus 
law, truth, light, spirit, covenant, faith, Church, kingdom, 
power, glory, good tidings, become in Scripture the law, 
the truth, the light, the Spirit, the covenant, the faith, 
the Church, the kingdom, the power, the glory, the good 
tidings or Hvangel; but these terms retain their ante- 
cedent meaning as terms, and do not lose it on account 
of the appropriation. The law of Moses was a law in the 
true and antecedent sense of the word; the truth is truth, 
the light is light, the covenant a covenant, the Spirit 
spirit. Life, death, salvation, damnation, judgment, and 
other words have a like appropriation in Scripture, but 
they retain notwithstanding their original and antecedent 
meanings. And, according to the same law of language, 
baptismal regeneration is still regeneration: the word 
does not cease to mean a particular thing, because that 
thing is conveyed by a particular channel. How that 


Cuar. V.|] Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 73 


thing is conveyed by that channel is a question with 
which we are not at present concerned. As a law of 
language, the old meaning which existed before this 
connexion goes on with it, and whatever the word meant 
as a word, that it continues to mean as an appropriated 
word. It may gain additional meaning, as involving in 
its special connexion remission of sin and admission to a 
new covenant, but it does not forfeit its old meaning. 
Regeneration even in the Calvinistic definition is dis- 
tinguished from actual goodness, as being an actual 
goodness which is infused into the soul at a particular 
time, viz. at the moment of the effectual call, or in elect 
infants at baptism or before baptism; and also as in- 
volving in addition the pardon of sin past; but it does 
not the less mean actual goodness in the Calvinistic 
sense. 

The baptismal controversy has thus exhibited a mis- 
take on both sides. On the one side it has certainly 
been a mistake to deny, in the face of such strong 
evidence, that the term “ regenerate” has an appropriate 
use in connexion with baptism: but on the other side it 
has also been a good deal forgotten that this term has 
a meaning of its own apart from its connexion with 
baptism, which meaning it does not lose, but retains in 
this connexion. If asked where this antecedent meaning 
is to be found, I go back to the proof which I have already 
adduced on this subject, to those statements of Scripture 
which have been already referred to, in which the phrase 
“son of God,” or “ born of God,” is evidently used as 
implying certain qualities and characteristics. It is 
therefore not enough, in describing regeneration, to say 
that it is baptismal regeneration, unless we also state 
what it—regeneration itself—is; i.e. go back to its 
natural and antecedent meaning as a word. For it is 
reversing the proper order of things to deduce our idea 


7A Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parti. 





of regeneration from baptism, instead of our idea of the 
baptismal gift from regeneration. 

But it is not necessary to appeal to the laws of lan- 
guage for deciding this question, for the passages in 
Scripture which are cited on this question, as containing 
an express or implicit reference to baptism as the act by 
which Christians had become regenerate, decide it of 
themselves ; obviously referrmg to the state ito which 
Christians had by that act entered, as a state of actual 
holiness and goodness. It is remarked by divines that 
in various passages in the Hpistles the new spiritual con- 
dition of Christians is put in the past tense, and they 
thence infer an implied reference in these passages to 
baptism, as the act by which this new spiritual condition 
had been obtained. How then is this new spiritual con- 
dition described in these passages, and what are the 
characteristics given of it in this connexion? Is it de- 
scribed as a mere capacity or power? By no means, but 
plainly as a state of actual goodness and holiness. “ Now 
if we died with Christ °”’—‘‘ Now if we died to sin,”’’ says 
St. Paul; “how shall we live any longer therein? .. . 
for he that hath died is free from sin.”’* “We were 
buried with Him by baptism unto death” °—‘‘ We were 
planted together in the likeness of His death” '—“ Our 
old man was crucified with Him” ’—‘ Having been made 
free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness ”’ * 
—<‘‘ Having been made free from sin, and having become 
the servants of God, ye have your fruit unto holiness” * 
—‘“‘The law of the Spirit of Christ hath made me free 
from the law of sin and death” *—“Ye received the 
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” * The 


6 Rom. vi. 8. 7 Rom. vi. 2. 8 Rom. vi. 7. 
9 Rom. vi. 4. 1 Rom. vi. 5. 2 Rom. vi. 6. 
3 Rom. vi. 18. * Rom. vi. 22. 5 Rom. viii. 2. 


6 Rom. viii. 15. 


Cap. V.] Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 75 


phrases “‘ having died to sin,” “ the old man having been 
crucified,” “having been made free from sin,” “ having 
become the servants of righteousness,” ‘‘ having become 
the servants of God,” imply in their natural signification 
an actual mortification of carnal, and the sway of spiritual, 
affections in the soul, or an actual state of holiness and 
goodness. And therefore the actual language of those 
very passages in which regeneration is contemplated in 
connexion with baptism shows that regeneration con- 
tinues to imply holiness and goodness, and by no means 
loses that meaning in this connexion. 

2. Another argument against the term “child of 
God” implying in Scripture actual goodness arises from 
the application of the term in the Old Testament to the 
Jewish people. The Jewish nation is called in the Old 
Testament God’s son,—“ Israel is My son, even My 
firstborn.” “ Ye are the children of the Lord your God,” 
says Moses to the people, and the name is applied to 
them on several occasions, especially in the prophetical 
writings. It is argued, then, that the only reason there 
could be for the application of the term to them, was 
that the Jewish people were admitted into covenant with 
God, and to particular privileges in connexion with it; 
and therefore, that the term is evidently not used in 
Scripture to imply actual goodness, but only admission 
to covenant relations and privileges. 

But, in the first place, the language of the Old Testa- 
ment asa whole throws extreme doubt upon this as a 
true and adequate account of the application of the term 
to the Jewish nation. The Jewish nation was admitted 
indeed to a covenant with God, and to various privileges 
in connexion with that covenant, especially to the know- 
ledge of the true God, of His nature, His will, and of 
the true worship of Him. But we must also consider 
what was the immediate consequence of this admission 


76 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


of the Jewish nation to this remarkable spiritual light 
from which the rest of mankind were excluded. The 
consequence of the Jewish nation being admitted to this 
knowledge of God and of the worship of Him, was that 
it did actually possess a true faith im God, and practised 
a true worship of Him, which no other nation of the 
world possessed or practised. Its faith and its worship 
were not opportunities only, or capacities only, but per- 
formances ; and the nation is represented in Scripture 
as not only admitted to a covenant, but as having re- 
ceived an actual religious mould from the fashioning 
hand of God. And accordingly we find the Jewish nation, 
as it is called in the Old Testament the “son of God,” 
so also called in the same Old Testament “the righteous 
nation’’—not, of course, that all the individuals of it 
possessed a true faith, or gave God a true worship, but 
that some did; and that, according to a common figure 
of speech, the nation was represented after the type of 
the better portion of it. However great a mixture the 
Jewish people, regarded only as an aggregate of indi- 
viduals, may have been; regarded as a wnity, the nation 
is represented in Scripture as—though guilty indeed of 
backslidings and great sins, as righteous persons often 
are—still righteous ;7 and as righteous entering in the 
page of futurity into its eternal reward, and admitted 
into that paradise which brightens the distant horizon, 
and forms the closing scene of prophecy. ‘ Ah, sinful 
nation,” says the Almighty, through the Prophet, “a 
people laden with iniquity; but it follows, “I will 
purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin ; 


“ “Deus electos suos a se aversos per peccatum revocat sane ad 
se, ut revocavit Davidem, Petrum, et alios multos... Nec de alia 
Dei gratia ad aversos ab ipso electos ejus testantur dicta prophe- 
tarum...ubi de fotius populi Det, non de smgulorum hominum 
restitutione vates loquitur.” Bucer, Script. Angl., p. 811. 


Cuap. V.| Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. 77 


afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, 
the faithful city.”* The tongue of prophecy never wearies 
with describing the spiritual greatness and glory of the 
chosen nation. “I will make thy officers peace, and 
thine exactors righteousness . .. thou shalt call thy 
walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.”* ‘Open ye the 
gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth 
may enter in.”’ “Thy people shall be all righteous, 
they shall inherit the land for ever.”? “I will place 
salvation in Zion for Israel My glory.”* ‘ They shall go 
to confusion together that are makers of idols. But 
Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting 
salvation : ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world 
without end.”* It makes no difference if the Jewish 
people is, as the subject of these prophecies, a typical 
people—a type of the true Israel, and of the Elect. For 
if “the righteous nation” is typical, the nation whom 
God calls His “son” is typical also: it is enough that 
it is the same collective personage which is called the 
“son,” which is also called “ righteous ;” that it is the 
same people and the same name of “ Israel” that unites 
both epithets. Indeed, that the Jewish nation is, as it con- 
fessedly is, the type of the Elect, is a circumstance which 
throws peculiar ight upon the other fact, viz. that God 
addresses it as His son. 

The term “son of God” then does not, when we 
examine the language of older inspiration as a whole, 
appear to be used in the Old Testament except in con- 
nexion with actual goodness,—whether belonging to an 
abstract or a typical personage, or a real person, is irrele- 
vant ; but, in the next place, we must consider that in the 
present argument we have to do not with the Old Testa- 
ment, but with the New Testament use of the term. We 

8 Tsa. 1. 4, 25, 26. ® Isa. lx. 17, 18. 1 Isa. xxvi. 2. 

2 Isa. Ix. 21. 3 Isa. xlvi. 13. 4 Isa. xlv. 16, 17. 


78 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


have to do with this term in a particular connexion, viz. 
as expressing a particular change which takes place in the 
soul under the later and spiritual dispensation; and the 
meaning of the term, as expressing this change, is what 
it has been stated to be. 

8. Again, in answer to the proof of the sense of the term 
“son of God” in the New Testament, the application of 
this or synonymous terms to whole bodies of Christians is 
appealed to as evidence that when Scripture apparently 
speaks of the regenerate state as involving actual good- 
ness, this is not its real meaning; for that, if it was, 
Scripture would not address, in this way, all Christians as 
regenerate. But to rest upon this ground for the disproof 
of the natural meaning of express statements of Scripture, 
is to rest not only upon unsafe ground, but upon ground 
which the admissions of all schools of divines have made 
altogether untenable. It may be granted, indeed, that 
this state is attributed in the Epistles to whole Christian 
bodies, if not expressly, by allusion and implication ; the 
members of those bodies being constantly addressed in 
them as regenerate persons; phrases equivalent to this 
being used if the exact word is not. But it is universally 
admitted by divines that Scripture makes use of pre- 
sumptive or hypothetical language. This a known and 
recognized principle, which is constantly taken into 
account in the interpretation of Scripture: indeed it 
would not be easy to mention any principle of construc- 
tion, of a special sort, which was of more familiar occurrence 
than this, or had obtained more general and undoubted 
acceptance, with all schools of expositors. Itis a principle 
which is constantly appealed to in our standard commen- 
taries, and which is had recourse to without any hesitation 
for the explanation of various statements of Scripture. 
No doubt, indeed, has ever been entertained of the fact 
that this is a form of speech which is in use in Scripture, 


Cuap. V.] Screptural Sense of Regeneration. 79 


i.e. as to the principle itself of supposition being adopted 
by Scripture: it is therefore appealed to, circumstances 
appearing to require it, by divines, as naturally and as 
confidently as certain conventional constructions and 
figures of speech in language are appealed to by gram- 
marians. It is generally allowed that when all Christians 
are addressed in the New Testament as “ saints,” “dead 
to sin,” “alive to God,” “risen with Christ,” “having 
their conversation in heaven,” and in other like modes, 
they are addressed so hypothetically, and not to express 
the literal fact that all the individuals so addressed were 
of this character ; which would not have been true. 
When then we have this plain and strong evidence of 
the Scriptural sense of the term “child of God” before 
us, viz. that wherever Scripture describes him, explains 
what he is, and tells us what his characteristics are, it 
invariably describes him as a good and holy person, and 
makes these the characteristics of sonship; we cannot 
give up this as the Scriptural sense of the term, in con- 
sideration of such an argument as this—an argument, be 
it observed, not resting upon any plain statements of 
Scripture, but only upon an inference from a certain 
application of the word, and that inference open to the 
answer here given. Could any positive statements of 
Scripture indeed be appealed to which actually described 
the regenerate man in a different way from that in which 
he is described in the statements which were above cited, 
such language would form a proper ground for another 
meaning of the term: in which case we could only say that 
Scripture contained two different meanings of this term. 
But this application of the term in Scripture is no ground 
whatever for another sense of the term; showing as it 
does, not that the term as applied to the whole Christian 
body does not mean actual goodness, but only that meaning 
this, it is applied hypothetically. The difficulty which is 


80 Scriptural Sense of Regeneration. | Parr. 


raised is solved by another explanation than that which is 
brought forward, and that an explanation in perfect har- 
mony with the style and rules of Scripture. 

Some divines have indeed preferred as a theological ar- 
rangement a secondary sense of the term “ regenerate ”’ to 
the hypothetical application of it in its true sense. But what 
is this secondary sense when we examine it? It is itself 
no more than the true sense hypothetically applied. They 
therefore gain nothing by the exchange, and only avoid 
one form of doing a thing in order to do the same thing 
under another. ‘They say that the regenerate state, when 
attributed to whole bodies, means that they are regene- 
rate, new creatures, members of Christ, children of God 
by external profession. But what is an external profession 
but a supposition which men make or desire to have made 
about themselves? Divines have in the same way main- 
tained a Scriptural secondary sense of the term “ saint,” 
as “saint by outward vocation and charitable presump- 
tion ;”* but this is in very terms only the real sense of 
the term applied hypothetically. 

We have thus from an examination of the language of 
Scripture, ascertained what is the true and Scriptural 
sense of the term “regenerate,” or “born of God,” which 
we should distinguish from certain incorrect and inade- 
quate senses. 1. Regeneration is not simply grace, though 
these words have been commonly used as synonymous in 
recent controversy. Grace is the generic term including 
even altogether fruitless grace, or mere assisting grace 
even if it produces nothing in the person to whom it is 
given; but regeneration is a grace which implies fruit, or 
an actual state of goodness naman. 2. Regeneration is 
not simply remission of sin actual or original, but involves 
a positive quality of goodness. 38. Regeneration is not a 


5 Pearson on the Creed, Art. ix. 


Cuap. V.| Scrzptural Sense of Regeneration. 81 





mere change of federal relations to God, or admission to 
a covenant containing the promise of eternal life, if we 
are qualified, but involves the qualification. 4. Regene- 
ration implies not a mere capacity for goodness, but 
goodness itself. 

Two false distinctions may be noticed in conclusion :— 

1. Regeneration is pronounced by some to be totally 
different from renovation; Waterland drawing the dis- 
tinction thus: ‘ Regeneration,” he says, “is a kind of 
renewal, but then it is of the spiritual state considered at 
large, whereas renovation seems to mean a more parti- 
cular kind of renewal, namely, of the inward frame or 
disposition of the man.” ° This distinction is untrue, for 
regeneration is certainly presented to us in the New 
Testament as “the renewal of the inward frame and 
disposition,” and therefore so far it is exactly the same 
as renovation. Regeneration, indeed, only differs from 
renovation, in being renovation and something besides, 
viz. remission of sin: the term as appropriated to express 
the grace of baptism, involving this addition. 

2. Another false distinction is the contrast between 
regeneration as a birth, and a certain spiritual character 
and disposition which has to be formed and grow into 
existence after this birth by the contingent exertion of 
the will. The act of regeneration is a birth, but it is a 
birth into a state of actual possession, not of means of 
acquisition only ; and from the moment that it takes place 
goodness exists, and has not to grow into ewistence, 
though it admits of growth. The regenerate man may 
rise indefinitely in the scale of perfection, but he is still, 
from the moment that he is regenerate, a formed spiritual 
man, having actual goodness; of which his birth is the 
beginning and first enjoyment indeed, but not the mere 
rudimental capacity. 


® On Regeneration, vol. iv. p. 483. 


CHAPTER VI 
PATRISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION 


Wirxovr going to the Fathers to ascertain the true mean- 
ing of the term regenerate, which has been already ascer- 
tained from Scripture,—inasmuch as whatever be the sense 
in which Scripture uses the word, that is the true one,— 
it is not unimportant to observe that the Scriptural mean- 
ing of this term as stated in the last chapter is accepted 
and carried on by the Fathers. 

1. And first, as has been already observed, this word 
has a meaning of its own as a word employed in language 
to signify something. What is the meaning then which 
attaches to it in the Fathers, in this independent use, and 
apart from a sacramental connexion ? 

We rarely meet then with the very term regenerate in 
the Fathers in this independent use, though it occurs 
sufficiently often to have its meaning clearly stamped upon 
it, and that meaning the Scriptural one. Clement of 
Rome says that “ Noah preached regeneration,” evidently 
using the term as a synonym for “ righteousness,” of 
which St. Peter calls Noah a “ preacher,”’ and for 
“ repentance,” of which Clement himself has just. before 
called the same Noah a preacher.’ Clement of Alexandria 

1 2 Pet. i. 5. 

2 Née motos etpebeis did rhs eroupylas avrod madvyyeveciay Kiopo 
exnpvéev. 1 Ep. ad Cor. s. 9. Noe exnpvEev perdavorav, s. 7. The 
explanation of St. Clement’s meaning, as being that Noah an- 
nounced baptismal regeneration, by foretelling the Flood, which 
was a type of the latter, is far-fetched. 


Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 83 





calls the young man’s return to piety after a post-bap- 
tismal lapse into a robber’s life, regeneration, and applies 
the same term to the repentance of the adulteress.3 
“ How shall a man,” says Hippolytus, “ be regenerated ? 
By not committing adultery, murder, or idolatry, by over- 
coming pleasure and pride, by throwing off the defilement 
and burden of sin and corruption.” 4 

But for the proof of the Patristic meaning of “ rege- 
nerate,” in its independent use as a word, we are not 
restricted to the occurrence of that very word itself, 
because, as has been observed, there is another term 
which is perfectly synonymous with it, and is to all intents 
and purposes the same word, viz. the term “born of 
God,” or “child of God.” Whatever this latter phrase 
then means, in its independent use as a phrase, that the 
former means as well. But this opening admits us to a 
field of evidence as large and ample as could be desired; 


> Avdods péya rapadevypa petavolas adnOuijs kal péya yyopiopa TaALy- 
dere Ap. Euseb. Hist. 1. 3, c. 23. 

“H yap rot mopvevoara Gh pev TH aie améOavev S€ tais évroXais’ 7 
de peravonoaca, oiov avayevvnOeioa kata Ti emaTpopyy Tov Biov, madty- 
yeveciay éxer Cons, Strom. 1. 2, c. 23. Much is made by some of 
the ofoy here, as if it were a confession of incorrectness in the use 
of dvayevynOeioa in the sense here given to it. But if ofov does 
stand here for “as it were,” all that we can gather from it is, that 
“born again” is a metaphor for change of life, not that change of 
life is not the correct meaning of the metaphor: it is, however, 
rendered in the translation of Sylburgius which Potter adopts 
simply —“ ut que sit.” The use of the term in these two passages 
is explained by some as having reference to regeneration in baptism 
reviving upon repentance and amendment after a course of sin; 
and regeneration is understood in them to mean not simply re- 
generation, but “ a sort of second regeneration.” Thisis an assump- 
tion, however, for which there is no ground. Not indeed that much 
difference would be made were this gloss even admitted. For how 
could return to goodness be a second regeneration, if goodness was 
not implied in the first regeneration? For Clement’s sense of the 
word in other passages, see Note 11. 4 In Theoph. s. 10. 

a 2 


84 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


for the term “ child of God,” or “{born of God,” is of con- 
stant occurrence in the Fathers as signifying a good and 
holy man.’ 

2. But the word “regenerate” has in the Fathers, 
besides its use asa word, a special and appropriate use in 
connexion with baptism; therefore the next question is, 
what is the meaning of the word in the Fathers as thus 
appropriated? Does its antecedent meaning as a word 
still go on attaching to it in its sacramental connexion ; 
and does regeneration continue to imply actual goodness, 
when it becomes baptismal regeneration, as before when 
it was regeneration ? 

There appears to be, as has been already observed, a 
prevalent assumption, that when the term regenerate con- 
tracts a special use and becomes appropriated to baptism, 
it drops its antecedent meaning as a word; but such an 
assumption, as has been explained,° is contrary to the 
laws of language, because a term is selected for a special 
use on account of its antecedent meaning, to part with 
which therefore on account of its special use would be a 
result wholly imconsistent and irrational. The thing 
which the term signifies continues the same it was 
before, only with the addition of the instrument by which 
it is conveyed. 

5 Thus Origen,— Every man who has attained to maturity is 
either a child of God or a child of the devil. For either he commits 
sin or does not; if he does, heisa child of the devil; if he does not, 
he isa child of God.” In Joan. tom. xx.13. “They are sons of men,” 
says Augustine, “ when they do ill, sons of God when they do well.” 
On Psalm li. And again, “Love alone distinguishes between the 
children of God and the children of the devil. Let all sign them- 
selves with the sign of the cross, let all say Amen, let all sing 
Hallelujah, let all be baptized, let all come to church, the children 
of God are only distinguished from the children of the devil by 
love. They who have love are born of God, they who have not 


love are not born of God.” In1 Ep. Joan., Tract. v. s. 7. 
BP. 7s 


Cuap. VI.| Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 85 





The Fathers then retain for the word as appropriated to 
baptism, the meaning of actual goodness. Other aspects 
of the gift, indeed, such as that of pardon, admission to 
a covenant, a new spiritual faculty, have an established 
place in their language, and may for a time exclusively 
occupy their attention, but these are not exclusive of the 
gift of actual righteousness, but additional to it. 

If we take the terms which the Fathers apply to bap- 
tismal regeneration in amass, we have the following col- 
lective description of it. We see it called righteousness, 
sanctification, transformation, renovation, purification, 
the perishing of the outer man, the formation of the inner ; 
the life of virtues, the death of crimes; the port of inno- 
cence, the shipwreck of sins ; the sprinkling of the con- 
science, the new infancy of innocence, the return of the 
original formation, the cleansing with the invisible hyssop ; 
the presence of a new heart and new spirit, the removal! of 
the stony heart; the destruction of the devil, the dissolu- 
tion of bondage, the stripping off of the filthy garment, 
and the putting on of the incorrupt and spotless clothing 
—the robe of royalty, the garment of princes, the robe of 
glory, the garment of redemption; the resurrection to 
immortality, the drinking in of immortality, the putting on 
of immortality ; the enjoyment of the inheritance, the glory 
from on high, the gleaming with the rays of righteousness 
as with the brightness of the sun; incorruption, salvation, 
deification, eternal life, paradise, and heaven. Such lan- 
guage is certainly the description of more than a mere 
state of ability to attain even sublime holiness and good- 
ness, which would be compatible with actual wickedness : 
it is the description of a state of actual righteousness. 

To come to particular passages, the two following 
belong to a class, as it may be called, of panegyrics of 
baptism ; lofty statements presenting with considerable 
pomp chains of high privileges and virtues attaching to 


86 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


that ordinance, and intending to give the idea of a solemn 
triumphant procession. Chrysostom thus enumerates 
“the ten honours of baptism :’—“ Blessed be God, who 
alone doeth wonders; who maketh all things and changeth 
all. Behold, they enjoy the calm of freedom who a little 
before were held captives, they are citizens of the Church 
who were wandering in error, and they have the lot of 
righteousness who were in the confusion of sin. For they 
are not only free, but holy; not holy only, but righteous ; 
not righteous only, but sons; not sons only, but heirs ; 
not heirs only, but brethren of Christ; not brethren of 
Christ only, but co-heirs ; not only co-heirs, but members ; 
not members only, but a temple; not a temple only, but 
instruments of the Spirit.” 

“ Baptism,” says Gregory Nazianzen, “is the bright- 
ness of the soul, transformation of life, the answer of a 
good conscience toward God, the help of infirmity, the 
putting off of the flesh, obedience to the Spirit, com- 
munion with the Word, restoration of the creature to 
rectitude, the cataclysm of sin, participation of light, dis- 
persion of darkness, the chariot to God, migration with 
Christ, the prop of faith, the perfection of the under- 
standing, the key of the kingdom of heaven, change of 
living, dissolution of bondage, unloosening of chains, the 
recreation of the whole man.” * 

So much of the language of the Fathers which fur- 
nishes the recognized proof of their doctrine of baptism 
is language of this kind, or approximating to it, that we 
cannot explain away these passages as rhetorical without, 
in the proportion in which we do so, reducing our proof 
of the Patristic doctrine altogether. We must under- 
stand them as declaring something doctrinal as to the 
nature of the baptismal gift or regeneration, and we find 


7 No. 1, Note 12. 8 No. 2, Note 12. 


Cuar. VI.| Patristec Sense of Regeneration. 87 


that the most moderate and apparently literal items of 
the description are terms denoting actual holiness and 
goodness :— Holy ” and “ righteous ” being the terms 
which Chrysostom applies to the regenerate man ; “trans- 
formation of life,” “the answer of a good conscience,” 
the “ putting off of the flesh,” “ obedience to the Spirit,” 
“ change of living,” being the terms Gregory of Nazian- 
zen applies to the regenerate state. 

Or take the following, which are more of the didactic 
type :—“ Approach, O man, and be regenerated,” says 
Hippolytus, in a passage already partially quoted. “ And 
how, saith he? If thou do not commit adultery or 
murder; do not worship idols, art not overcome by plea- 
sure or pride: if thou throwest off the filth of impurity 
and burden of sin, puttest off the armour of Satan and 
puttest on the breastplate of faith ; as saith Isaiah, ‘ Wash 
you, seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the 
fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us 
reason together, saith the Lord. Though your sins be 
as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be 
red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing 
and obedient, ye shall eat the fat of the land.” Thou 
seest, beloved, how the Prophet foretold the purification 
of baptism; for he that goeth down into the laver of 
regeneration with faith quits evil and joins himself to 
Christ, renounces the enemy and confesses Christ to be 
God, puts off slavery and puts on adoption, ascends from 
baptism bright as the sun, and emitting the rays of 
righteousness.” ° The writer begins here with the natu- 
ral use of “‘regeneration’’ as a word meaning morally 
converted; but does he give up the sense when he comes 
in the next place to connect regeneration with baptism? 
By no means. ‘The natural sense of the term as involvy- 


9 No. 3, Note 12. 


88 Patrostic Sense of Regeneration. [Part I. 


ing actual goodness still continues, and regeneration, 
as ‘the purification of baptism,”’ retains all that it implied 
as simply regeneration. 

Gregory Nyssen refers renewal and regeneration to 
baptism; but does he change the signification of those 
terms as thus appropriated? By no means. “Ye who 
boast of the gift of regeneration and renewal,” he says, 
“ give evidence of that mystical grace by a change of 
morals. ... There are plain signs by which we know 
the new-born man; the abandonment of old habits, and 
a new life and conversation will show that the soul is 
born anew of another parentage.... Was the man be- 
fore baptism licentious, covetous, rapacious, a reviler, a 
liar, a sycophant, let him now be orderly, moderate, content 
with his own and giving of that to the needy, truth- 
loving, respectful, affable, practising all that is praise- 
worthy. ... So ought the sons of God to have their con- 
versation ; for after grace we are called His sons, and 
therefore it behoves us accurately to attend to the Pater- 
nal characteristics, that fashioning and moulding our- 
selves into likeness to our Father, we may show ourselves 
to be His genuine sons, and not a spurious offspring. 
Our Lord, in the Gospels, bids us pray for them that 
despitefully use us and persecute us, that we may be the 
children of our Father which is in heaven... . Ye are 
sons, He says, when you imitate your Father’s good- 
ness.”' What I observe of this passage is, that it does 
not represent a good life and conversation only as the 
fruit which ought to follow regeneration, but also as a 
test which decides the fact of it; and that it thus re- 
presents regeneration, even that which is connected with 
baptism,—not as a faculty only which is consistent with 
contrary practice, but as an inward disposition and habit 
which implies a corresponding practice. 


1 No. 4, Note 12. 


Cuap. VI.] Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 89 


Justin Martyr, in the well-known passage in the Apology 
which describes the process of baptismal admission into 
the Christian Church and Covenant, regards regeneration, 
even as appropriated to baptism, in the light of an actu- 
ally holy disposition of mind, “being made the child of 
freedom and choice:” and the “illumination,” which in 
him and other early writers figures as so prominent a 
characteristic of the baptismal gift, is not a mere faculty, 
but a habit of mind, and that of a religious and moral 
kind.* Clement of Alexandria appropriates, like Justin, 
regeneration to baptism ; but still how does he describe 
regeneration even as tied toa sacrament? “ Being rege- 
nerated,” he says, “‘ we forthwith received perfection, for 
we were enlightened, and that is to know God. Bap- 
tized, we are enlightened; enlightened, we are adopted ; 
adopted, we are perfected; perfected, we are made im- 
mortal. ... We believe that we are perfect so far as is 
possible in this world. ... We wash away all our sins, and 
are no longer bent upon evil. For this is this very grace 
of illumination, that we are no longer the same in moral 
disposition that we were before baptism. . . . We are 
purified by baptism, and run up to the immortal light as 
children to their father... that being children of God 
who have put off the old man, having stripped ourselves 
of the tunic of wickedness and put on the incorruptibility 
of Christ, we may, as a people new-made, holy, regene- 
rated, preserve the unpolluted man.” ® 

Cyprian, in the well-known letter in which he describes 


ov ee , , 
2 "Ores pn avaykns réxva pndé dyvoias pévapev, a\Aa Tpoatpevews 
> , ms , 
Kal emioTnuns, aperews TE GuapTiav Urep GY mponudpropev TUX@pEV EV 
code g > / ~ A 
T@ VOaTL, errovouaterar TH eAopev@ avayevynOyvat, kal peravonoayte ert 
mel fe a a a a 
Tots NuapTnpevors, TO TOU TaTpos TOV GA@y Kal Aeomdrov Oeod Gvopa... 
kaXeirat b€ rovTo TO Nouvtpov horicpds. Apolog. 1.1, s. 61. 
Mia xdpts avtn tod hotiaparos TO pr TOV avToy EL D mp 7 ov- 
xp n paros TO pi) TOV avTOY Elvat TO Tp 7 ov 
/ 
cacOa tov rporov. Clem. Alex. Peed. 1.1, c. 6. 
3 No. 5, Note 12. 


90 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. 


his own regeneration in the baptismal water, still de- 
scribes that regeneration as “a conversion.”* He de- 
scribes the effects of this new birth by water much, 
indeed, in the same way in which one of a modern school, 
who connected the new birth not with water but with 
the impulse of the Spirit only, would describe those effects, 
i.e. as conscious and felt, as a sensible inward enlighten- 
ment and elevation, and the immediate possession of a 
new temper of mind and a new point of view in which to 
look at everything. “ Forthwith, in a wonderful man- 
ner, doubtful things began to certify themselves, shut 
things to open, dark things to shine, difficult things to 
be easy, things impossible to be practicable ; so that one 
could not but recognize the difference between that which 
being subject by carnal birth to sin was earthly, and that 
which being quickened by the Holy Spirit had begun to 
be of God.” Though he contemplates regeneration then 
as imparted in and by baptism, the term still retains with 
Cyprian, in this connexion, its natural meaning of an 
actual conversion of heart and temper. 

Augustine, in the well-known passage in which he 
answers the objection of the absence of faith in infants 
as recipients of baptism, identifies regeneration even in 
its sacramental connexion with actual conversion of heart. 
“As in Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day 
after birth, the sign of the righteousness of faith 
preceded, and when he grew up the righteousness 
itself followed; so in baptized infants the sacrament 
of regeneration precedes, and, if they preserve Chris- 
tian piety, that conversion follows in the heart the 
sacrament of which preceded in the body.”’ To call 


4 « Difficile prorsus ac durum opinabar ut quis renasci denuo 
posset .... Qui possibilis aiebam, est tanta conversio.” Hp. 1. 
5 “Tn baptizatis infantibus preecedit regenerationis sacramen- 


Cuap. VI.] Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 91 


baptism alternately the sacrament of regeneration and 
the sacrament of conversion is to identify one of these 
terms in meaning with the other: there cannot be a 
plainer proof that, to the writer’s mind at the time, both 
terms meant the same thing. The natural sense of 
regeneration then, as implying actual goodness, still goes 
on adhering to it, even as appropriated to baptism, in 
this statement of Augustine. 

It is true Augustine goes on to say :—“ The Sacrament 
of Baptism is one thing, conversion of the heart is 
another ;”’ and hence Bishop Bethell extracts a ground 
for the following remark upon this whole passage, viz. 
that “it appears to him to be a direct example of the 
manner in which the Fathers separated regeneration from 
conversion.” But Augustine is not distinguishing here 
between regeneration and conversion, which he has 
obviously just identified with each other, but between 
“the Sacrament of Baptism ” and conversion. 

We come now to a later and more advanced language 
descriptive of the baptismal gift. “ What mind,” says 
Leo, ‘‘ can comprehend this sacrament ? what tongue can 
describe this grace? Iniquity returns to innocence, and 
old age to newness ; aliens come into the adoption, and 
strangers into the heirdom. Men begin to be just from 
being ungodly, bountiful from being covetous, chaste 
from being incontinent, heavenly from being earthly. 
What is this transformation but the right hand of the 
Most High?” “Not only the glorious fortitude of 
martyrs,” says the same Father, ‘ but the faith of all the 
re-born, in the very act of regeneration, suffers with 
Christ; for while they renounce the devil and confess 
their belief in God, while they pass from old age to 


tum, et si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde. 
conversio cujus mysterium preecessit in corpore.” De Bapt. contra 
Donat. 1. 4, c. 24. 


92 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


newness, while they put off the image of the earthly and 
assume the form of the heavenly, a certain similitude of 
death and resurrection takes place; so that being taken 
up by Christ and taking up Christ, the man is not the 
same after baptism that he was before it, but the body of 
the regenerate becomes the flesh of Christ.””—“ The new 
creature in baptism is not stripped of the covering of real 
flesh, but of the infection of the old condemned nature, 
so that the man is made the body of Christ because 
Christ is the body of man.” “It is manifest that all 
incur damnation by birth in Adam, unless they are 
rescued by being re-born in Christ; wherefore we must 
accurately consider what it is which is done in the gift 
of regeneration. Although all the portions of the same 
mystery meet together in one, what is enacted visibly is 
one thing, what is solemnized invisibly is another; the 
form of the sacrament is not the same as its virtue, the 
form being administered by man, the virtue being im- 
parted by God; to whose power it is to be referred, that 
while the outer man is washed, the inner man 1s changed ; 
a new creature made out of an old, vessels of wrath trans- 
formed into vessels of mercy, the sinful flesh changed into 
the body of Christ ; from ungodly men become righteous, 
from captives free, from sons of men sons of God.” ° 
Here is a view of baptism which connects it more 
intimately and radically with the Incarnation than the 
earlier language of the Fathers did; incorporating it as 
it were in that fundamental mystery, and constructing a 
rationale of the sacrament upon a basis of theological 
science and system. It is a view which was elicited by 
the Eutychian heresy, which denied the proper human 
nature of our Lord, and by this denial extracted from the 
orthodox side a stronger and intenser contradictory 


6 No. 6, Note 12. 


Cuap. VI.] Patristec Sense of Regeneration. 93 





rationale of that human nature, making it even a more 
active centre in theology, with more of ramification and 
result. Baptism, upon this view, incorporated the 
humanity of the individual man in the central human 
nature of our Lord, who, as the second Adam, was the 
typical man, the exemplar and true representative of 
humanity. The sacrament—if the term “ physical” can 
be applied to spiritual thngs—thus produced something 
of a physical change in the soul in the shape of an actual 
participation of our Lord’s human nature, and imparted 
to it a positive form and mould in the impress of the 
image of the second Adam. But what was this change 
as a moral change, or a moral rise in the condition of the 
soul? Was it the being endowed with a faculty only by 
which the individual was enabled to attain holiness and 
goodness? Leo certainly describes more than a faculty 
when he says, that “‘ while the outer man is washed, the 
inner man is changed; ” that “‘he is a new creature made 
out of an old,” “a righteous man begun out of an 
ungodly, a charitable out of a covetous, a captive out of a 
free ;” that “the image of the earthly man is cast off, 
and the form assumed of the heavenly man,” and that 
“he is not the same man after baptism that he was before 
it”? “ What is this transformation,” he says, “but the 
right hand of the Most High?” The new moral state 
thus described is certainly a state inconsistent with the 
person who is in it being at the time wicked ; and there- 
fore is a state of actual holiness and goodness. 

This general representation of baptismal regeneration 
in the Fathers as implying actual goodness and _ holiness, 
will be confirmed by some points of detail. 

1. The delivery or release from sin imparted in baptism, 
appears in the Fathers to include more than what is 
commonly understood by “ remission of sin,” or release 
from the guilt and penalty of past sin, viz. an actual 


94 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


purification of the soul from present sin; and thus a good 
deal of the language of the Fathers which at first sight 
might appear to express only “remission of sin”? virtually 
expresses a state of actual holiness, as the effect of 
baptism. Clement of Alexandria distinguishes between 
these two effects of delivery from sin. “ Baptism,” he 
says, “is called the laver because it is that by which we 
cast off our sins, the gift because it is that by which are 
remitted the penalties due to our sins.”’ And it is a 
purification from present sin which he describes when he 
says,— clearing away in baptism the darkening cloud 
of our sins, we have our spiritual eye free and unim- 
peded.” * The cleansing of baptism is here made to 
consist in the removal of present sin, as well as the 
remission of past. Chrysostom understands the baptismal 
release from sin in the same sense, in his comment on 
Rom. vi. 2, “ We that have died to sin, how shall we live 
any longer therein?”? “ What is died? Our becoming 
dead to it, believing and being enlightened. What is 
becoming dead to it? Obeying it no longer. For this 
hath baptism done for us once; it deadened us toit... . 
What the cross and burial then was to Christ, this hath 
baptism been to us, though not in the same material ; 
for He died and was buried to the flesh, we to sin; as 
the death of Christ to flesh was real, so was ours to sin 
real.”’?* This deliverance from sin in baptism is spoken 
of as a spiritual resurrection. ‘One resurrection is a 
delivery from sin, the second is the resurrection of the 
body ; He hath given the greater; expect the less, for 
this is indeed much greater than the other; the delivery 
from sin far greater than the resurrection of the body. 
.... We have risen the greater resurrection wherein 
we cast off the death of sin so difficult to get rid of, and 


7 No. 5, Note 12. 8 Thid. ° No. 7, Note 12. 


Cuap. VI.| Patrestic Sense of Regeneration. 95 





put off the old garment; let us not despair of the less 
when we long ago had the greater in baptism.”?! The 
baptismal deliverance from sin, then, in the sense in 
which the Fathers understood it, was not only remission 
of past sin, but purification from present, and so implied 
actual goodness and holiness. 

2. Regeneration in baptism always figures in the 
Fathers as the reality of which circumcision was the 
type ; it is represented as spiritual circumcision. ‘The 
hand applieth not this circumcision,” says Chrysostom, 
“but the Spirit; it circumciseth not a part, but the 
whole man. The body 1s circumcised in both, but in the 
one corporally, in the other spiritually. Ye have put off 
like the Jews not your flesh, but your sins. When and 
how? In Baptism.’’’ “Our circumcision,” says Theo- 
doret, “is not bodily but spiritual, not made by the hand 
but divine, not the riddance of a little flesh, but the 
delivery from all corruption.” * But there can be no 
doubt that spiritual circumcision is actual goodness and 
holiness. If regeneration in baptism then is spiritual 
circumcision, regeneration in baptism is actual goodness 
and holiness. 

3. In practical exhortation we employ two different 
kinds of language, according as we suppose men simply 
to have a faculty for goodness which they ought to use 
to become good, or an actual habit of goodness which 
they ought to guard, maintain, and properly improve as 
an existing treasure. In the one case the argument is— 
you are not yet good, and therefore you must endeavour 
to become so; in the other it is—you are good, and 
therefore you must take care and remain so ; and express 
and embody your inward habit in all your actions. This 
latter argument becomes—persons who are the proper 


1 No. 8, Note 12. 2 No. 9, Note 12. 3 No. 10, Note 12. 


96 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. [Parrl. 


subjects of it being supposed—the most forcible and 
stirring inducement there is to a good life and conduct. 
For it must be remembered that persons do not cease to 
be subjects of exhortation because they are good; they 
have a most important work to do to which they are to 
be strenuously urged, viz. to sustain and advance their 
own goodness, for people may easily neglect even their 
own virtue, and fall away from it. In this case then the 
appeal to men to keep up an existing goodness, is the 
strongest of all arguments, because it reminds them of 
the rich treasure, of which the loss would be indelible 
disgrace, involving as it were gratuitous suicide. The 
possession of goodness is indeed the greatest and highest 
of all responsibilities, the appeal to which is adapted to 
stir up the whole man and awaken the most wholesome 
fear and vigorous resolution. 

We observe in the Fathers then a permanent use of 
this latter argument. ‘They do not in practical exhorta- 
tion urge the baptized only to cultivate a faculty, but to 
guard an actual goodness which they became possessed 
of in baptism. It is thus that Chrysostom, commenting 
on the text, “ He that is dead is freed from sin,” * exhorts 
the baptized:—‘If thou hast died in baptism, remain 
dead, for a dead man cannot sin any longer. He lies 
dead, and therefore is delivered from sinning any more. 
So is it with him who has come up from baptism. He died 
there to sin once: it behoves him to remain dead to it.’ ® 
—‘ Baptism,” he says again, “hath done this once for 
us; it deadened us to sin; but for the rest we must by 
our exertions verify this constantly : so that, though sin 
issue ten thousand commands, we should obey it no 
longer, but remain motionless as the dead.” °—“ God 
gave us the renewal of regeneration in the laver of bap- 


4 Rom. vi. 7. 5 No. 11, Note 12. 6 No. 7, Note 12. 


Cuap. VI.| Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 97 





tism, that having therein put off the old man or wicked 
actions, and having put on the new, we may tread the 
path of virtue.”’’—%Gape not, therefore, after luxury 
and splendid dress, for thou hast already the glory from 
on high, and Christ is become everything to thee, table 
and garment and house, and head and root ; for as many 
of youas have been baptized unto Christ have put on 
Christ.” °—“ For this is regeneration, not when the 
house is rotten rebuilding it on the old foundation, but 
building it up anew altogether, as He hath done to us.”® 
«Thou renouncedst sin,” says Theodoret, “and becamest 
dead to it, and wert buried with Christ. How then is it 
possible for thee to take to sin again? ”’? 

This, as it is a comment upon, so is evidently also a 
carrying on of, the same method of exhortation that we 
observe in St. Paul’s Epistles, in which the Apostle so 
affectionately urges Christians as having died to sin, and 
having been made free from sin, and having become the 
servants of righteousness, to act in consistency with this 
already existing goodness and heavenly-mindedness. 
The death to sin, which the mature Christian shows in 
practice, is contemplated in these passages as only the 
death to sin which took place in baptism continwed—the 
same state with it, not the contingent result of it. The 
érravop0wots TAaomaTOs Of Gregory Nazianzen seems to 
express the same idea, viz. that man is “set right ” in bap- 
tism, re-endowed with the habit in which he was created, 
and so given a fresh start, with the advantage of being 
placed again in an initial state of virtue, in which he has 
only to remain and persevere, in order to obtain his final 
reward. 

It may be asked, indeed, how such actual goodness, as 
the Fathers describe regeneration to be, is imparted by 
7 No. 12, Note 12. 8 No. 18, Note 12. 

9 No. 14, Note 12. 1 No. 15, Note 12. 
H 


98 Patristic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


an outward rite. But we have only to do here with the 
fact of the Patristic sense, not with any ulterior question 
which may follow from it. There are interpreters, indeed, 
of the Fathers who come forward with an explanation on 
this point. These interpreters say that the Fathers 
having principally in their minds, in their use of this 
language, the case of zealous and devout adults, who came 
to baptism with already formed devout dispositions, are 
not to be understood too literally in the assertion that such 
dispositions are imparted then and there by the visible 
sacrament, which is rather a mode of speaking, meaning 
substantially that baptism is the climax and consumma- 
tion of that whole previous process of conversion which 
has produced these dispositions. I am not, however, 
concerned in the present chapter with any difficulty 
resulting from the Patristic sense of regeneration, or any 
explanation of it, but only with the Patristic sense of 
regeneration itself. 

Again, the whole of this language of the Fathers has 
received a particular interpretation from divines of the 
Anglican school, who, maintaining the docrine of bap- 
tismal regeneration upon the authority of the Fathers, 
have yet explained all this language as descriptive of a 
faculty only for attaining actual goodness. They have 
apparently given it this sense from deciding that it was 
wanted, to accommodate such language to the facts of 
Christian life, which do not indicate an actual state of 
goodness as uniformly derived from baptism. But when 
a large mass of language lies before us, and the question 
is what it means, this is a question which must be settled, 
not by considering what is wanted to suit the needs of 
theology, but by the natural force and signification of 
the language itself, which being clear and decided, it is 
not then allowable that an outside difficulty resulting 
from some ulterior question should unseat this natural 


Cuap. VI.] Patristic Sense of Regeneration. 99 


interpretation, and cancel the intrinsic meaning of such 
language. Hxamined by this plain test, this language 
refuses the explanation just mentioned. Nowhere do 
the Fathers represent regeneration as a faculty only, a 
“potential principle”? as distinguished from actual 
righteousness: on the contrary, they describe it, as 
plainly as they can do by words, as being actual 
righteousness. 


CHAPTER VII 
SCHOLASTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION 


WE come now from the Fathers to the baptismal language 
of the Schools. The Scholastic sense of regeneration is, 
with all the peculiarity and quaintness of the forms in 
which it is expressed, a remarkable witness to the tenacity 
with which the Scriptural sense has clung to the term 
amid much foreign incrustation, and the growth of 
artificial subtleties and refinements. The Fathers use 
language to one general purport, but the more accurate 
Schoolmen brought matters more to a point: and when 
they had formally raised the question what regeneration 
was, declared without hesitation that it involved actual 
goodness and all the Christian virtues. This definition 
of the baptismal gift was expressed in the formula that 
“baptism conferred grace and the virtues” '—a formula 
which substantially explains itself, but which, being cast 
in an antiquated mould of language, not familiar to the 
ear of an ordinary reader of English divinity, may require 
some elucidation. 

The term “ gratia” then may at first mislead the 
Anglican reader accustomed to understand that term in 
the sense of assisting grace, or an imparted faculty. It 
has a much higher sense in this formula, and stands for a 
grace which is positively creative, not only imparting the 
power but the very fact of goodness—the sense which it 


1“ Per baptismum conferuntur homini gratia et virtutes.” 
Summ. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. 


Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. IOI 


apparently bears in one portion of Scripture language. 
This creative sense, though not necessarily implying the 
predestinarian hypothesis, was indebted for its preserva- 
tion to the predestinarian school in the Patristic Church, 
in whose guardianship the deposit remained, till from 
Augustine and his followers it came down to Lombard 
and Aquinas. In the theology of these two chiefs of the 
schools “ grace” figures as an actually creating and 
fashioning agent, not only inserting the faculty, but the 
habit of virtue in the soul, and imparting ab initio to it 
the final spiritual mould; it figures as a cause which 
brings with it simultaneously its effect in the shape of a 
moral conformation then and there produced of the inner 
man; itis gratia gratum faciens,—grace which makes a 
man of such a character as that God is pleased with him ; 
grace which makes a man virtuous, efficiens virtuosum ; 
grace which inserts goodness in the creature, ponens 
bonum in creatura; grace, “which is a quality of the 
soul of man, as beauty is a quality of the body, consti- 
tuting him an object of moral love;” grace, “whereby 
the soul is moulded into the very form and likeness of 
God, by which likeness it is made worthy of the life 
eternal ;” grace which contains and includes all the 
virtues, as the abundant source and the productive root 
contain the stream and the plant.* 

And hence the juxtaposition of grace with the other 
term, virtutes, which is presented to us in this formula: 
the stream is given with the source, the plant with the 
root. The Schoolmen draw different subtle distinctions 
in defining the relation of “grace” to the “virtues ;” 
Lombard considering that grace is virtue,* by which he 
appears to mean that grace is that common substance of 


2 Note 13. 
3 “Tila gratia virtus non incongrue nominatur.” Lombard, |. 2, 
dist. 27. 


102 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. 


which the virtues are different forms ; Aquinas, that grace 
is rather a root or substratum of the virtues,—a radical 
habit out of which the virtues are necessarily produced 
and derived. “ “ Grace is a universally directing habit,” 
says Alexander Hales, ‘‘ each virtue directing to its own 
act, but grace to all. Grace is the light, virtue is the 
ray ; the same in substance and differing only in relation, 
because the ray is the direction of the light into this or 
that part of the atmosphere, and in the same way virtue 
is the manifestation of grace in this or that form in the 
soul.” * Itis enough, however—for such subtle refine- 
ments are wholly beside the main question—that grace 
in this formula.is not merely an assisting grace; but that, 
whether as a common substance containing them, or as a 
radical habit de facto producing them, grace actually, and 
not potentially only, includes the Christian virtues; and 
that, standing in this relation to each other, grace and 
the virtues, the root and the branches together’ are 
inserted in the soul in the act of regeneration. 

Thus much for “grace.” The “virtues” —to turn to 
the other term in this formula—are again defined with 
sufficient precision as to their nature and rank. First, 
they are virtues, correctly defined according to the 
science of ethics, which asserts virtue to be a “ habit,” 
and a “habit” to be “a quality difficult to remove, by 
which a man acts easily and pleasantly.’ ° ‘A habit,” 


4“ Gratia est habitudo quedam que presupponitur virtutibus 
sicut earum principium et radix.” Aquinas, S. T., 1ma, 2de, Q. 
110, A. 3. “ Gratia purificationis aut est charitas cum fide et spe ; 
aut certe est queedam alia qualitas cum qua infallibiliter conjunctze 
sunt tres ille virtutes.” Bellarmine, De Sacram. Bapt. 1.1. ¢. 11. 

5 Summa Theol. p. 464. 

6 « Virtus est habitus, ad cujus rationem pertinet quod sit quali- 
tas difficile mobilis, per quam aliquis faciliter et delectabiliter opera- 
tw.’ Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. 


Cuapr. VIT.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 103 


says Durandus, quoting another Aristotelian definition, 
“is that by which a man is well or ill disposed to himself 
or another: a habit is that which determines the faculty 
to good or evil.”7 “ Every faculty which suffers under 
difficulty in the performance of its act wants a facilitating 
principle ; which principle is a habit.”* Such being a 
habit, a virtue is a good habit. “ Virtue,” says Lombard, 
quoting Augustine, “is a good quality of the mind by 
which we live aright, bona qualitas mentis qua recte 
vivitur”’*® ‘Virtue,’ says Bonaventure, quoting the 
same authority, “is the habit of a well-constituted mind, 
habitus mentis bene constitute.”' “The virtues” then, 
which, according to this formula, are involved in re- 
generation, are true and real virtues of the texture and 
composition prescribed in the science of ethics. 

So much for the nature of the “virtues.” Their rank 
is decided by the character of the dispensation to which 
they belong. They are not the prudential or the simply 
moral habits attaching to a state of nature, but they are 
the transcendental and supernatural virtues of a state of 
grace,” laid down in Scripture as principally three—faith, 
hope, and charity; which three “theological virtues ” 
therefore, to give the Scholastic name, are according to 
this formula inserted in the soul in the act of regenera- 
tion. 

Such being, however, the fundamental formula of the 
Schools, an important difference appears in the earlier 

7 In Lomb. p. 198. 8 In Lomb. p. 252. 

9 L. 2, dist. 27. 1 Compendium Theol. 1. v. ¢. 5. 

2 « Virtutes theologices hae modo ordinant hominem ad beati- 
tudinem supernaturalem, sicut per naturalem inclinationem ordi- 
natur homo in finem sibi connaturalem.” Aquinas, S, T., 1ma, 
Ode, Q. 62,A. 3. “ Prater habitus morales acquisitos indigemus 
theologicis habitibus ... Actus quibus ordinamur ad beatitudinem 


supernaturalem procedunt ex potentiis perfectis per habitus.” 
Durandus in Lomb. p. 254. 


104 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. [Parr I. 


and later application of it, and the language of Peter 
Lombard invites attention as exhibiting considerable 
differences from that of his successors in the Schools. 
Lombard adopts the radical formula just mentioned, that 
the thing given in baptism, 1.e. regeneration, is an actual 
habit of goodness—“the deposition of vices, and the 
collation of virtues.” “It is this,’ he says, ‘‘ which 
constitutes the new man; abolition of sin, adornment 
with the virtues: the abolition of sin expels foulness, the 
apposition of virtues confers splendour, and this is the 
res sacramenti of baptism.”* But while Lombard thus 
defined regeneration or the grace of baptism, he hesitated 
when he came to the question of infants as recipients of 
this grace, and finally declined to assert that they received 
the whole of it, that they had this gift of regeneration 
imparted to them in its fulness and completeness. He 
expresses this opinion in a celebrated passage,’ in which 
having allowed infants the negative part of regeneration 
or the remission of original sin, and meeting the question 
whether they receive the positive—the grace, “qua ad 
majorem venientes setatem possint velle et operari 
bonum,” he replies, “ Videtur quod non:” because only 
recognizing grace as a habit of goodness, he says that 
infants cannot possess habits. “ Quia gratia illa charitas 
est et fides. . . . Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et 
charitatem ?” 

But the limitation which Lombard attached to the 
infant’s reception of baptismal grace altogether dis- 


3 “Causa vero institutionis Baptismi est innovatio mentis, ut 
homo qui per peccatum vetus fuerat, per gratiam baptismi renove- 
tur, quod fit depositione vitiorum et collatione virtutum. Sic enim 
fit quisque novus homo, cum abolitis peccatis ornatur virtutibus. 
Abolitio peccatorum pellit foeditatem, appositio virtutum affert 
decorem; et hc est res hujus sacramenti.” L. 4, dist. 3. 

* Note 14. 


Caar. VII. | Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 105 


appeared in later Scholasticism. Aquinas and the formal 
medieval school laid it down distinctly and summarily 
that “infants in baptism receive grace and the virtues ;” 
and Bellarmine only expresses a long-established decision 
in asserting that ‘the habits of faith, hope, and charity 
are infused into infants at baptism.”* The infant left 
the baptismal font, endowed not only with the faculties, 
but with the habits of all Christian goodness already 
miraculously formed in him: he rose out of the water 
with a soul not only directed towards but already 
fashioned upon the true exemplar, and moulded into the 
perfect form of the spiritual man. It was true that 
infants were incapable from natural immaturity of ex- 
pressing these habits in action, but they still possessed 
the habits: they were not yet “able to entertain the 
motions of free will,” but they were still susceptible of 
moral goodness “ by means of the Divine information of 
their souls ;”’ 1.e. by the original reception of a moral 
mould and a rudimental character from the Divine 
hand.° 

Such was’ the Scholastic doctrine of the regeneration 


> “Pueri in baptismo gratiam et virtutes consequuntur.” §S. T., 
ar G). 695A... G: 

“ Infantibus in baptismo infunduntur habitus fidei, spei, et chari- 
tatis.” Bellarmine, De Sacr. Bapt. 1. i. c. 11. 

“ Anima rationalis duobus modis dicitur esse susceptibilis vir- 
tutes, uno modo per acquisitionem, alio modo per infusionem. Per 
acquisitionem, parvulus manens parvulus non suscipit virtutem. 
Sed per infusionem suscipit virtutem antequam utatur: sicut 
patet in Salomone, cui infusa est scientia cum dormiebat.’’ 
Alexander Alensis, Sum. Th. p. 184. 

“Dantur parvulis habitus perfecti virtutum quamvis per illos 
non operentur.” Bonaventure in Lomb. iv. p. 64. 

® “ Pueri non sunt capaces motus liberi arbitrii, et ideo moventur 
a Deo ad justitiam per solam informationem anime ipsorum.” 
Aquinas, 8. T., 1ma, 2d, Q. 113, A. 3. 


106 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


of all infants in baptism ; its fundamental characteristic 
being that it did not give up but retained the Scriptural 
sense of regeneration as actual goodness ; only making 
that difference in the actual goodness of the infant which 
his infantine age required, viz. that it was a seminal 
habit, not a habit in action. The notion of regeneration 
as a mere faculty or capacity was not even entertained. 
Such a scheme had to meet the difficulties attaching to 
the theological application of the doctrine beyond the 
limits of Scripture, but did not tamper with the natural 
meaning of a Scripture term. 

The question, indeed, immediately arose upon the con- 
struction of this bold baptismal scheme, how it was to be 
reconciled with facts. A habit was, by its very Scho- 
lastic definition, “a quality of the mind not easily re- 
movable, by which one acts easily and pleasurably.” 
How was it then that those who possessed these habits, 
by the implantation of them in their souls in infancy, did 
not show them as they grew up, in the usual way in 
which habits are shown, by expressing them in action, 
and by performing good actions with that facility and 
pleasure which a habit imparts? Instead of which we 
unfortunately see the great mass of each Christian gene- 
ration as it grows up, living in carelessness and sin in- 
stead of virtue, and hardly any practising virtue from 
the first with ease, as if they had already the habit of it. 
But the tendency of the medizeval mind, in theological as 
in other science, was not to allow facts to interfere with 
theory. The facts were indeed too strong for denial, but 
the theoretical spirit maintains its ground sometimes, not 
by refusing to admit facts when they are patent, but by 
not allowing them when admitted to interfere with theory, 
and satisfying itself with a feeble and insufficient explana- 
tion. 

So long then as the infant remained such, the expla- 


Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 107 


nation of this difficulty was easy, viz. that though the 
implanted habit was in him, it was in him only in a latent 
and unconscious stage, and he could not act upon it by 
reason of the immaturity of nature.’ But then came the 
real test of the theory. The infant grows up, attains the 
use of his natural faculties, and becomes a reasonable 
and responsible agent; but he still does not, and may 
not for his whole life, show such habits. How was this? 
The excuse of natural immaturity could now no longer 
apply, and recourse was had to another and a much more 
intricate and subtle one. 

The explanation of the difficulty was then asserted to 
lie in the fundamental nature of habits: that habits did 
not move themselves, but required the free will of the 
agent to put them in motion on any successive occasion 
in which action was required. A man did not act in a 
particular way at any given time, simply by having the 
habit, but by acting according to his habit. It thus de- 
pended on the prevailing motion of the agent’s will at 
the time, whether a habit was used, and expressed itself 
in action, or whether it lay dormant and idle.* If .there- 
fore, in addition to these infused habits themselves, a suc- 


7 “Videntes pueros inhabiles ad actus virtutum crediderunt eos 
post baptismum nullatenus virtutem habere. Sed ista impotentia 
operandi non accedit pueris ex defectu habitunm, sed ex impedi- 
mento corporali.” Aquinas, 8. T., P. 3, Q. 69, A.6. ‘Hic effectus 
non statim inest puero post baptismum. Hoc autem non est prop- 
ter defectum virtutis, sed propter impotentiam nature agentis.” 
Bonaventure, Comp. Theol. 1. v. c. 3. See Note 15. 

8 “ Habitus non facit ut operemur, sed ut, cum operari volumus, 
facile operemur. Scitum est apud omnes philosophos habitum 
esse in nostra potestate, quo uti possumus cum volumus, sed non 
facit ut velimus, imo quiescit donec voluntas eum pro libitu exer- 
ceat.” Morinus, De Peen. |]. 8, c. 2. 

“Non est habitus qui facit facere.” Jansen, De Grat. Christi, 
p- 186. 


108 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


cession of special motions were given to the will to wse 
them, either by Divine grace simply or by the will of the 
agent himself conjointly with Divine grace, the infused 
habits were then brought into active use ; if these special 
motions were not given, then the habits slept and the 
agent fell back under the dominion of concupiscence, 
under which he indulged in sinful acts. 

This is the well-known Scholastic doct~ine of “ special 
grace,” as distinguished from “ habitual grace.” These 
infused virtues bearing, as habits imparted by grace, the 
technical name of “ habitual grace ” in Scholastic divinity, 
it is a maxim in that system that a man cannot act by 
“habitual grace” alone, but wants the addition of special 
erace besides it to make him act °—in common language, 
that, as a man cannot act at any given time simply by 
his habit, he requires besides his habit a special motion 
of the will to make him act. Habitual grace, then, thus 
needing the aid of special in order to bring it out and 
convert it to practical use, or, in other words, the general 
habit needing a particular impulse or motion to make it 
act on any given occasion, how was this special motion 
given? It depended on the system of the theologian, 
whether it was a motion of the independent human will 
aided by grace, or whether it was a motion of sovereign 
grace alone. Bellarmine makes it sometimes the one and 


9 “ Homo ad recte vivendum dupliciter auxilio Dei indiget, uno 
modo quantum ad aliquod habituale donum...alio modo ut a 
Deo moveatur ad agendum.” Aquinas, S. T., 1ma, 2dee, Q. 109, A. 9. 

“Neque enim auxilium speciale est habitus infusus; sed actio 
qua Deus hominem movet ad operandum, vel cum eo operatur.” 
Bellarmine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. 1.1. ¢. 2. 

“Gratia habitualis non est illa gratia quee facit velle et facere, 
queeque donat voluntatem et actionem; nam alioquin justus sem- 
per vellet et faceret.” ‘“‘Necessarium adjutorium gratie actualis 
quod tune datur quando actu volumus et operamur.” Jansen, De 
Grat. Christi, pp. 186, 151. 


Cuap. VII.] Scholastec Sense of Regeneration. 109 


sometimes the other:' Aquinas makes it sovereign and 
irresistible grace alone. In the “Summa Theologica,”’ 
this whole goodness of the regenerate creature, implanted 
in him at the moment of his new birth, figures, as how- 
ever fixed a habit, only as the Divine formation pre- 
ceding the final gift of action itself. It is the perfect 
disposition for action, standing on the very edge of 
proximity to it, and ready to turn into it in a moment, like 
matter trembling upon the point of crystallization; but 
still needing this last Divine impulse to convert it into 
the form of practice, and without that impulse lying 
dormant and sluggish, like the inanimate machine before 
the spring is touched. The Deity would have everything 
prepared for Him before He takes the finishing step; 
He therefore endows the creature with good habits, 1.e. 
puts him into a state of perfect readiness and promptness 
for virtuous action, that with this admirable facility 
already formed in him, he may be moved instantaneously 
by the final touch.” But if, in accordance with a secret 
eternal decree, the final touch is withheld, this whole 
Divine creation lies motionless and unproductive, habit 
just stops short of action, and the regenerate being, amid 
the fullest endowments of virtue, is left in the mass of 
orginal corruption, and perishes in his sins. 

Here was the explanation, then, of the important dif_i- 


1 « Auxilium Dei vere sufficiens adfuisse nonnullis, qui tamen 
reipsa conversi non sunt, ac per hoc auxilium illud efficaw non fuisse 
..+.quibusdam concedi efficaz auxilium.” De Grat. et Lib. Arb. 
Prise. if. 

The “ auxilium sufficiens” of Bellarmine however was a mockery : 
—‘ Nam tanquam pie credamus omnibus dari pro loco et tempore 
auxilium sufficiens, quo possint credere; tamen Scriptura docet 
reipsa non credere, nisi illos qui habent auxilium efficax.” Ibid. 
eit Coron 

2 «Tnfundit aliquas formas seu qualitates naturales secundum 
quas suaviter et prompte ab ipso moveantur.” See Note 16. 


110 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parrl. 


culty of habits possessed, and not at all shown by action ; 
the bold explanation, viz. that it was fundamentally un- 
necessary that habits should act at all ; because the agent 
could not act according to his habit without “ special 
motions,” which special motions he might never have. 
Another reason which was alleged to explain this diffi- 
culty was substantially the same, and only differently 
expressed. Inasmuch as in the absence of special motives 
to make him act, the agent fell back under the dominion 
of concupiscence as his practical impulse, it was alleged 
that habits were prevented from acting by concupiscence.* 
Human nature, it was said, was in a peculiar condition as 
an agent, and was not to be judged of by ordinary tests. 
A deep and radical principle of evil, called concupiscence, 
resided in it, by which the internal action of the machine 
was disordered, and the natural operation of these habits 
was obstructed; so that when it came to the point of 
actually doing or not doing something, concupiscence 
‘stepped into the seat of habit, and possessed itself of the 
spring of action in the soul. It was the continual repeti- 
tion of this process which produced the case which was to 
be explained, viz. that of an individual who never acted 
according to his habit. A man indulged in perpetual 
malice, or was the slave of avarice, or rioted in gluttony 
and drunkenness, for his whole life; the reason was not 
that he did not possess the habits of temperance, gene- 
rosity, and love, which he had by infusion, but that there 
was, so to speak, a hitch in the operation of the habits, 
something wrong in their executive and administrative 
functions; it was habit in an abnormal and exceptional 
state. 

There was for this reason, then, no objection to be 


3 “Difficultas ad bonum et pronitas ad malum inveniuntur in 
baptizatis non propter defectwin habitus virtutwm, sed propter con- 
cupiscentiam.” Aquinas, Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 4. 


Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 111 


alleged on the score of fact to the universal infusion of 
these habits in baptism, because at no stage of their 
existence was it necessary that these habits should produce 
action. They could not act in the infant on account of 
immaturity ; they need not act in the adult on account of 
concupiscence. The habits were there, but the man 
might be wholly different from them, and to all practical 
purposes the same as if he were without them. 

The mistake in this whole train of reasoning is ap- 
parent, and would not be worth pointing out were it not 
that there is a use in noticing what structures of words 
ingenious men will raise in order to maintain an hypo- 
thesis. It is quite true that a habit does not necessarily 
produce action at any given time, and on any given 
occasion. A man does not always act according to his 
habit; one habitually meek may commit a violent act, 
and one habitually brave a cowardly one. But though a 
good habit need not produce right acts on this particular 
occasion or on that, it must produce right acts on the 
whole. It is not habit otherwise, for what we mean by a 
habit is a disposition which on the whole produces action 
in this or that direction. The Scholastic theory gives a 
man the habit of liberality, which he cannot exert on 
account of the love of money; and the habit of sobriety, 
of which he cannot avail himself on account of the desire 
to drink. But in our very meaning of habit we imply the 
general fact of overcoming a contrary inclination. 

Such is the Scholastic doctrine of ‘‘ Infused Habits ”— 
a tenable doctrine, so far as it only asserts—what we see 
exemplied in nature—the Divine power of implanting 
habits, which are thus infused as distinguished from 
acquired habits; an inconsistent, artificial, and absurd 
doctrine, so far as it erects a class of habits which are real 
habits without producing action. A perfect Church was 
thus, by the mere force of theory, erected in the world, 


112 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. 





and renewed by the inexhaustible fertility of the bap- 
tismal font, which sent up a perpetual succession of souls 
divinely fashioned and armed in the full panoply of 
Christian virtue ; this miraculous metamorphosis of sinful 
into virtuous and just beings was a perpetual process 
going on under the dispensation of grace; but theory 
could, after all, only produce an illusory creation which 
eluded all grasp, and vanished at the first contact with 
the waking senses; the whole erection was ideal and 
fictitious, and before the eye could fasten on it, melted 
into space. 

The boldness of Roman theology is at the same time 
joined to a considerable flexibleness in this speculation. 
The character of the formed Christian combines the true 
habit of virtue with the diminution of concupiscence ; the 
two, indeed, are but different aspects of one change, for 
in proportion as habit strengthens, concupiscence decays, 
and exerts a less imperious yoke. The baptismal gift 
then, as embodying the true habit of virtue, reduced 
concupiscence in the Scholastic system to that tenuity 
which was consistent with that habit,—to a principle of 
corruption which, just felt, but deprived of all force, “ had 
not the nature of sin.” But while a weakened and only 
just not extinct concupiscence was wanted on one side of 
the theory to combine with the infused habit of virtue, a 
strong one was wanted on the other as a counteracting 
principle to account for that habit’s unproductiveness, 
and being wanted was asserted. The Scholastic system 
thus bent concupiscence to its own convenience, and made 
it strong or weak, in accordance with its own needs. 

But without criticizing the boldness or the misapplied 
ingenuity of the Scholastic doctrine of baptism, or follow- 
ing the evolutions of medizeval theological science, it is 
enough to observe the fact for the sake of which this 
examination was entered upon, viz. a fundamental inter- 


a 


~Cuap. VII.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 113 


pretation of regeneration as implying actual goodness. 
It is true that Scholasticism, having laid down its 
baptismal formula, endeavours by logical artifice to escape 
the consequences of it; but the formula itself is no less 
positive, and the interpretation contained in it no less 
clear.* 

Before quitting this baptismal theory, however, it is 
proper we should append to it its correct theological 
name. The doctrine which has been described, then, in 
this chapter is the Roman doctrine of Justification which, 
after a long reign in the Schools, had the finishing stroke 
of authority put to it in the decree of the Council of Trent, 
which lays down as the formal cause of (ie. that which 
constitutes) justification, “ the righteousness of God, not 
that whereby He is righteous, but that by which He makes 
us righteous ; being endued with which, we are renewed in 
the spirit of our minds, and not only are accounted, but 
are truly called, and are righteous ;” for that “in justifi- 
cation, together with remission of sin, faith, hope, and 
charity are infused into us.” * The Anglican doctrine of 
justification® lays down some real goodness as necessary 
to justification, but it maintains it as the condition of, and 
not as the contents and material of, the gift. Understood 
in a forensic sense as a declaratory act of God accounting 
us righteous, justification presupposes as the ground of 
this imputation the goodness of faith and repentance in 
us, but does not itself insert or implant this goodness. 


4 Note 17. 5 Note 18. 

6 « Notate actum Dei hominem justum estimantis, non justum 
facientis.” Bull, Harmonia, Dissert. Prior. c. 1. Thorndike, 
Covenant of Grace, b. ii. c. 30, s. 21. 

Bishop Forbes inclines to the Roman view, “.... ita ut post 
justiticationem nihil macule peccati mortalis et gravioris maneat 
in anima peccatoris, quod nunquam ordinarie fit absque infusione 
inherentis gratia.” De Just. 1. i. co. 4. Anglo-Cath. Hd. v. 1, 
p- 166. 

I 


114 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr. 


But the Roman justification, while it requires, with the 
Anglican, conditions in the shape of certain preparatory 
workings of the heart, is not like the Anglican, only a 
forensic and imputative act, but an act by which God 
literally infuses habitual righteousness into the soul, which 
has only experienced good motions before, inserting in it 
the habits of faith, hope, and charity. Justification is 
thus, in the Roman sense, the making a man actually 
good, and is, indeed, identical with sanctification; for 
sanctification is also this endowing of the soul with actually 
good and holy affections, habits, and dispositions. And 
being such, justification is the grace of baptism, and is 
thus identical with, and stamps this whole meaning wpon, 
regeneration; which state of regeneration, therefore, 
involves actual goodness in the Roman sense.’ And it 
will be observed that this question has nothing to do with 
the correctness or incorrectness of the Roman sense of 
justification: that is a matter of controversy: but, 
whether the Roman sense of justification is right or 
wrong, the Roman sense of regeneration or the grace of 
baptism, as identical with justification, 1s alike fixed by it. 

It is remarkable indeed, that as we leave the Fathers, 
and enter upon Scholastic ground, the term “ regenera- 
tion,” to a great extent, disappears, and the term “ justi- 


7 “The ancient moralists,” says Bishop Bethell, “make a just 
and reasonable distinction between faculties or dispositions and 
habits. Faculties or dispositions are potential principles of action, 
which must be elicited by education or opportunities, and formed 
into habits by use and exercise. Habits are the same principles in 
a state of activity, and of readiness and aptness for use. But 
according to the doctrine of the Scholastic divines, those principles 
which are said to be infused into the soul when it is regenerated, do 
not follow the order of moral causes, but are at once in a state of 
activity, and produce free acts, as soon as they have the oppor- 
tunity of exerting themselves.” Treatise on Baptismal Regenera- 
tion, p. 164, 


Cuap. VII.| Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 115 


fication ” rises in its place, to express the res sacramenti 
of baptism.* The great Patristic term was taken up 
again, after the lapse of centuries, by the Anglican divines, 
who professed a recurrence to the Fathers, but it suffered 
a long intermediate obscuration. The reason of the sub- 
stitution may have been that regeneration is a metaphor, 
and that as theology became more scientific, it became 
impatient of the metaphor, and chose a term which seemed 
etymologically to express the fact involved i regenera- 
tion,— the being made just or righteous. 

Justification, indeed, as the baptismal gift, and con- 
nected specially with the new dispensation, carried with 
it a privilege which previous to Christian baptism it 
did not. As the baptismal gift and identical with regene- 
ration, it was the apertio januce ceelestis, which it was not 
before. The door of heaven opened forthwith to the 
Christian saint, while the justified fathers of the Old 
Covenant, who were justified without being regenerated, 
reposed in a separate realm allotted to them, and were 
restricted for a preliminary period to the peaceful, though 
longing, expectation of the Visio Dei.’ 


8 «Res ergo hujus sacramenti justificatio est.” Lombard, 1. iv. 
dist. 3, s. 12. 

“ Tnterior justificatio que est res hujus sacramenti.” Aquinas, 
Be Ps Pp. 3, Qs. 66, ALT: 

“Res sacramenti scilicet gratia cum virtutibus.” Bonaventure 
in Lomb. iv. p. 64. 

Bellarmine makes more use of the term regeneration, but still 
only as subordinate to the other term. “ Justificatio est regenera- 
tio et renovatio per lavacrum baptismi in nobis facta. Hance autem 
regenerationem, quz est ipsa justificatio, fierl per aliquod donum 
inhzrens probari potest ex ipsa natura et ratione regenerationis ; 
neque enim intelligi potest quemadmodum regeneretur aliquis sine 
ulla sui mutatione .... Regeneratio aliquid in ipso homine ponit, 
ob quod filius Dei nominetur et sit... primarium donum quod est 
charitas.” De Justificatione, l. 2, c. 3. 

° “Tili{Sancti Patres] habebant carentiam visionis cum expecta- 


12 


116 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


But while Christian justification, ie. regeneration, was 
thus distinguished from the justification of the patriarchs 
and saints of the Old Covenant, the distinction was no more 
than this ; it was one of reward or privilege, not of sub- 
stance of spiritual condition; appendant and temporary, not 
intrinsic. Boththe Fathers and Schoolmen, indeed, acknow- 
ledge more fellowship and common ground with the Old 
Testament saint,’ than do some modern divines who repre- 
sent this interval between sanctification and regeneration, 
as if it divided two radically different conditions of the 
human soul, and as if the ancient saints did not partake 
of the same grace of which baptized Christians did. This 
is a new and an unauthorized depreciation of the spiritual 
rank of the old patriarchs, whom ancient theology describes 
as justified and sanctified by the same grace by which 
Christians are, and one flowing from the same Incarnation, 
though in the one case prior, in the other posterior, in time 
to that event. There has been but one fundamental 
dispensation in the world since its creation, viz. that of the 
Gospel, the consummation of which was prospective to the 
older saint, retrospective to the later, but was, whether 
looked forward to or looked back to, the object and source 
of the same essentially Christian faith; nor do the 
Fathers scruple to call the saints of the Old Testament 
Christians.’ 

A great advantage undoubtedly attaches to the later 
stage of this great inclusive dispensation, as compared 
with the earlier one ; and an advantage to which natural 


tione, et ideo quia visionem Dei expectabant non tantum in limbo, 
sed in sinu Abrahe dicebantur esse... Sinus autem Abrahe in 
bonum quia est ibi requies.” Bonaventure in Lomb. iv. p. 582. 
See Mr. Owen’s “ Introduction to the Study of Dogmatic Theology,” 
chap. xvi. 

1 And were freer too in their concessions to the sacraments of 
the old Law. Note 19. 2 Note 19. 


Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 117 


reason as well as formal theology testifies. Christianity 
has given a wonderful stimulus and expansion to our 
moral nature, and has produced a character superior in 
power, freedom, and comprehensiveness to that of the 
saint of the Old Testament. Even the intellectual 
enlightenment of the Christian, his superior insight into 
many sublime truths, and the largeness of his field of 
sympathy, are a great excitement to his moral powers. 
The true test of character, however, is the root rather 
than the expansion; whether we attend to the cautions of 
common sense, or whether we take our standard from 
poetry, which, impatient of the outer organization and 
framework of human character, pierces to its core, in 
order to find that sterling truth of nature, which makes 
the man according to the design of God. The mind of 
the poet penetrates within to reach the centre, the sub- 
stance of the uncorrupted heart, which may be more or 
less richly and largely developed according to circum- 
stances, but of which the true worth is itself. High and 
refined knowledge is indeed in an especial way penetrated 
by this reactionary test, which dismisses form and outer 
growth to recur to the foundation, and grasp the root of 
sincerity in man. It is thus that the highest civilization 
fosters the poetical aspect of the poor, because in the midst 
of growth and development, the craving more especially 
arises for the native rudiments,—those elementary forms 
of character which witness to their own truth, and which 
have the purity and strength of primordial substance. 
Half-formed thoughts, unconnected words, ejaculations, 
and mere looks, are prized above the most complete 
manifestations of the educated mind, as glimpses of a world 
of truth, escapings from the fountain-head, and fragments 
of a genuine original. 

The Christian character thus existed in its root in the 
patriarch and saint of the Old Testament; it had not that 


118 Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. | Parr I. 


development indeed which a later stage of the dispensation 
gave to it, but the whole greatness of the foundation was 
there,—the faith which, dim in the apprehension of its 
object, certain of itself, led the way and made the 
wonderful beginning; performed the first great act of 
foresight, and cast the first fixed look out of visible nature; 
drew the rough outline of futurity, and beheld afar off the 
city whose builder and maker is God. The patriarchal 
character is thus essentially a spiritual and a Christian 
one, the type and exemplar to which the Church still 
appeals as containing the whole substance of Gospel faith 
and sanctity. And, as such, it is the creation of the same 
Divine grace which works in the Christian Church. 

It may indeed help us to see how the substance of the 
Christian character could exist in the ancient patriarch 
without the expansion, that, vice versd, in the Christian 
there is sometimes seen the expansion without the sub- 
stance. The history of character under Christianity has 
its mysteries; the greatness of the revelations made to 
man has sometimes not abased him, but the contrary ; 
and he has used Christianity, as Alcibiades used Socrates, 
for the power which its truths have given him over others, 
rather than for the profit of them to himself. The large- 
ness which they have given to our field of view, the new 
world which they have opened, furnish him with a fulcrum 
for moving the feelings and controlling the wills of others, 
with which the whole of ancient philosophy had nothing 
to be compared. He has seen his advantage, and he has 
availed himself of it without scruple. And thus it is that 
the marvellous gift of a rich religious imagination, and an 
outer ethical formation, even upon a_ transcendental 
pattern, have sometimes not excluded in the Christian 
teacher and man of power an inner eye to vanity, a regard 
to a fleeting unsubstantial end. We see a want of simplicity 
and singleness in the fundamental aim of a soul desiring 


Cuap. VII.] Scholastic Sense of Regeneration. 119 





dominion over men’s minds, and pursuing a carnal great- 
ness even in the sphere of spiritual things. We see that 
something is grasped at which is external to the Divine 
law, and which therefore must involve asubtle self-seeking. 
Yet this inner unsoundness is surrounded with an outer 
depth of idea and feeling, with brilliant aspirations, and 
the signs of powerfully realized Christian truth. The 
expansion is perfect and admirable, but the mind within 
is not the mind of Christ.’ Vice versd, the patriarchal 
mind was the mind of Christ, but without the advantage 
of expansion. Its religious greatness consisted not im 
any beautiful diversity of outer ethical growth, but im an 
inward singleness of mind—that strong stock of truth 
upon which, as upon its native stay, the rising Church 
leaned undoubtedly, turning thenceforward and for ever 
to it, as to the original exemplar and type of faith. Such 
was the justification and sanctification of the saints of the 
Old Testament, the gift of the same Holy Spirit which 
descended on the day of Pentecost, and the work of the 
same Divine grace which now sanctifies the elect people 
of God. 


3 “ Si habuerit virtutem magnam et devotionem nimis ardentem, 
adhuc multum sibi deest... scilicet unum ut se relinquat.” De 
Imitatione Christi. ‘ S’ils vous ont donné Dieu pour objet, ce n’a 
été que pour exercer votre superbe.” Pascal. 


CHAPTER VIII 
CALVINISTIC SENSE OF REGENERATION 


Tux testimony of the Calvinistic School on the question 
now before us will perhaps be considered by some not to 
deserve much attention, but notwithstanding the partial 
and rigid character of this system, we cannot with fairness 
put out of court a school which can show so many great 
theological features, and whose learning and intellectual 
power and acuteness have been combined with the deepest 
faith. It need not be said then that regeneration involves 
actual goodness in the Calvinistic definition. Nor, asthe 
preceding chapters have shown, was this definition any 
innovation on the part of the Calvinists. We are apt to 
represent this school as having supplanted an old estab- 
lished sense of regeneration by a new one of its own, but, 
by the admission of Bishop Bethell himself, the Calvinists 
found the idea of regeneration “as a radical change of 
heart, and an implantation of a new character and dispo- 
sition,” already established in the Schools before them ; 
nor, in adopting it, did they do more than follow the lead 
of recognized theology. 

The tendency of Calvinism, however, as a popular sys- 
tem, has been to fix as the date of this great inward 
change, not baptism, but the moment of the effectual call, 
when God, by a sovereign act of grace, transfers the sin- 
ner from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan 
to God, implanting in him new affections and inclinations. 
Up to this time the elect have indeed been the subjects of 


Calvinestic Sense of Regeneration. 121 


a Divine decree predestinating them to everlasting life, 
but nothing has been done to put this decree in execu- 
tion, and the internal condition of the elect has been the 
same as that of the sinful mass; but at the call they are 
actually separated by a change of internal condition from 
the latter, and are endowed with a spiritual habit and 
disposition of mind. 

Bishop Bethel thus decides that the Schoolmen and the 
Calvinists define regeneration substantially alike. “ Ac- 
cording to the Schoolmen, man is endowed with the habit 
of justifying grace, containing in it the habits of faith, 
hope, and charity, when he is baptized; the Scholastic 
Calvinists asserted that regeneration consists in such a 
habit of grace bestowed upon the elect at the moment of 
the effectual call.” * But both Schools, he observed, 
agree in maintaining “ that habits of belief and holiness 
are implanted in the soul by a literal creation or miraculous 
action of Divine power,” *in the act of regeneration ; both 
identify regeneration with ‘‘a change of affections and 
inward feelings,” with “ an infusion of particular virtues,” * 
with ‘‘ the renewal of the whole inward frame, and a 
radical change in all the parts and faculties of the soul.” * 
Though in recognizing the fact of this substantial agree- 
ment of two different Schools in a particular definition, 
Bishop Bethell hardly seems to give it the weight which 
is due to it—to the concordant testimony of two such 
opposite and independent witnesses to one meaning of 
regeneration as the true one. 

The Calvinistic definition, however, added to the sense 
of regeneration as actual goodness, and farther extended 
it. A temporary habit of goodness is not enough in the 
opinion of the Calvinist to constitute so high a privilege 
as that of being a son of God; for which privilege some 

1 Treatise, p. 162. 2 P. 183. 
$. Pref. p. 30. 4 Pref. p. 39. 


122 Calvenestec Sense of Regeneration. {Parr I. 





guarantee seems to him requisite that the person who is 
good now, should also be good in eternity. Sonship is 
necessarily an immortal state in his idea, because it is 
being the son of the “ Eternal and Immortal,” a partici- 
pation of a nature which is imperishable and cannot fail. 
To talk of a man then being a son of God now, and not 
being a son of God at a certain date from hence, is con- 
demned as simple trifling, and the idea of a temporary 
sonship is altogether rejected as an incongruity and a 
solecism in reason. ‘The condition is required, therefore, 
by the Calvinist, in assigning the title of son of God, that 
once possessed it should never be parted with ; nor is such 
a condition to beset aside as wholly unreasonable or un- 
scriptural, appealing as it does to a natural maxim,which 
-we cannot altogether discard, that the end is the test 
even of the reality of the present, and favoured as it is by 
certain striking portions of Scripture language. 

The too rigid adherence, however, to the condition of 
permanence and indefectibility as essential to regenera- 
tion, involved the Calvinist in difficulties as great as the 
concession of a temporary regeneration would have entailed. 
It may seem unnatural and incongruous to say that a man 
is a son of God now, who will be a child of the devil ata 
certain date from hence, but still the fact must be admitted 
that men do fall, and from a good life change to a bad one. 
How, then, are we to describe the previous state of good- 
ness? Was it altogether a deception without mward 
reality? We might say so, perhaps, if it vanished for 
ever and never appeared again. But what if it revives, 
and revives to continue totheend? It must be admitted 
then to have been a real goodness, and therefore true 
sonship ; and yet to have been apparently only temporary, 
stopping at a particular time. The Calvinist then ex- 
plained this difficulty by supposing in such a case a root 
of goodness, which remained in the human soul even 


Cuap. VIII. ] Caluinastic Sense of Regeneration. 123 


when the visible fruit, in the shape of an apparent actual 
life of goodness, was gone, and the man was sunk in vice ; 
—from which it followed that the sonship had never reaily 
ceased, but only suffered an eclipse.’ But that a man 
should be in root and essence a son of God, at the very 
time that he is wallowing in the pollution of sin, is not a 
Scriptural idea. Itis true that by a figure of speech 
Scripture represents what is certain to be, as already pre- 
sent, and in this sense a profligate man may be a saint 
now to the Divine prescience, but he is not a saint in him- 
self. The Calvinist thus bridged over the interval of the 
elect’s lapse at the cost of his definition of regeneration, 
and obtained his continuous line of sonship by an un- 
authorized reduction of the meaning of that term. 
Regeneration was thus wltimately defined not as a habit, 
but as aprocess; by virtue of which goodness did not 
necessarily then exist, but was in sure progress to forma- 
tion. It wasa process which when once begun in man by 
the Holy Ghost, was never wholly abandoned, but though 
sometimes thrown back upon its original starting-ground, 
with all the fabric hitherto erected demolished, had 
still an ultimate footing reserved to it in the soul, 
upon which the Spirit commenced in due time His work 
afresh, till the spiritual man was built up. The Calvinistic 
and Scholastic definitions thus agreeing at the outset, 
parted company at a certain stage of the argument; and 
regeneration from an actual “ habit” of goodness, which 


> “Hoo tamen non dubito quin semen illud quo electos suos re- 
generat Deus, ut est incorruptibile, ita perpetuam vim habeat. 
Fieri quidem posse concedo ut interdum suffocetur, quemadmodum 
in Davide: sed tamen quo tempore videbatur extincta esse omnis 
in eo pietas, carbo vivus sub cineribus latebat. Conatur quidem 
Satan avellere quicquid Dei est in electis; sed ubi plurimum illi 
permittitur, manet semper occulta radix, que deinde pullulat.”’ 
Calvin on 1 John iui. 9. 


124 Calvinistic Sense of Regeneration. | Part I. 


naturally shows itself in the practice of goodness, became 
the process of the formation of goodness, all the first intro- 
ductory part of which could be secret, and simultaneous 
with a life of the grossest sin. 

This modification of the definition of regeneration, helped 
a section of the Calvinistic School out of another difficulty. 

The Calvinistic School could not consistently with its 
principles hold the regeneration of all infants in baptism. 
Indeed they were in a difficulty here antecedently to the 
objection arising from their own peculiar tenet. For the 
only definition of infant baptismal regeneration, which, 
by the admission of Bishop Bethell, was presented to the 
Calvinists upon their first birth as a school, was the 
established Scholastic definition, that all infants had the 
habits of faith, hope, and charity infused into them at 
baptism. But they could not accept this position, but 
were obliged to reject it, not only because it was opposed 
to Calvinism, but because it was contrary to fact. 

But though the Calvinistic School could not consist- 
ently hold the regeneration of all infants in baptism, and 
though its popular tendency has been to defer that change 
to the age of consciousness, it has still as a school never 
given up the connexion of regeneration with baptism, but 
adhered to the teaching of its early authorities, who main- 
tained the regeneration of infants—those who were elect 
—and baptism as the instrument or the seal of this re- 
generation.’ But how was the regeneration of the elect 
in infancy consistent with the obvious fact that many of 
the elect lived years in sin before their actual conversion ? 
In what mode and sense were they regenerate throughout 
this previous life? By “ initial regeneration,’ it was 
answered. But what was this? If it was an implanted 
habit it would come out with the growth of reason, 


5 See Chapter vu. Part II. 7 Note 20. 


Cuap. VIII. | Calvenestec Sense of Regeneration. 125 





whereas the elect person might live up to a point of 
middle or perhaps even declining life in sin. This initial 
regeneration then was not an implanted habit, but only 
the commencement of an infallible process, which had to 
work its way through a long conflict of opposing forces, 
and gradually shape the rough material of the human 
soul into the spiritual form. Such an incipient stage of 
a process is not the regeneration of the New Testament ; 
for though the decree of predestination can attach to a 
person in and throughout the longest period of sin, he is 
not during this period in the Scriptural sense of the word 
regenerate. This modification, however, of the definition 
of regeneration got the sacramental Calvinist out of a 
difficulty, out of which the Schoolman never extricated 
himself. For the Scholastic implanted habit provoked the 
challenge to come out and show itself with the growth of 
reason; whereas the Calvinistic process invited no such 
challenge, only being obliged to show itself when it was 
completed, which it might not be till even the end of life. 

An examination into the Anglican sense of regenera- 
tion would now follow in natural order. I use the term 
*« Anglican” because this is the ordinary designation of 
a particular school which succeeded the Calvinistic in our 
Church, and which contains most of our well-known 
divines. The Anglican School, though a divided witness, 
still gives the main strength of its testimony to that 
sense of regeneration which has been maintained in this 
treatise as the true and Scriptural one; but an exa- 
mination of the method of treatment which the divines 
of this school applied to this question is reserved for 
another place in this treatise.* 


8 Chapter xi. 


CHAPTER IX 
REGENERATION OF ADULTS IN BAPTISM 


Tux case of adult regeneration in baptism is easily stated 
with respect to the conditions of it. That no adult is 
regenerate in baptism without faith and repentance is the 
unquestionable doctrine of Scripture and the universal 
Church.’ 

An opposite language, viz. that even wicked adults are 
regenerate in baptism, though not beneficially, is held 
by some, but such a notion is entirely without warrant. 
Those who maintain such a position seem to do so upon 
the idea that regeneration is only the imparting of a 
power or faculty ; in which case they see no inconsistency 
in the notion of a man being regenerated while wicked, 
because it is a law of the Divine dispensations that great 
faculties are conferred upon good and bad alike. But 
regeneration is a complex thing, including in the essential 
idea of it, besides this power for the future, remission of 
past sin, to which forgiveness the wicked cannot possibly 
be admitted while they are wicked. They receive the 
baptismal character indeed, which is perhaps what these 
persons mean; but this character is not regeneration. 

But when we go from the conditions of the gift, to 
what the gift 7s in the case of adults, the case becomes 
more difficult. The main distinction which a preceding 
chapter? has established is, that the regenerate state is 


1 See p. 50, and Notes 6 and 8. 2 Chapter v. 


Regeneration of Adults in Baptism. 127 


in the Scriptural sense a habit of goodness and not a 
faculty only. It was shown to be actual goodness, and by 
goodness we mean a habit of goodness. But here a 
question arises. For regeneration is confessed on all 
sides to be an absolute gift of God, but can habits be 
absolutely given, and created by Divine power? Our 
faculties are universally acknowledged to be simply given 
us, but according to the Aristotelian doctrine, habits are 
acquired by our own use of the faculties, or by succes- 
sive acts. The answer to this question is that habits, 
even as distinguished from faculties, can be implanted in 
the soul by Divine power. Instances of this appear in- 
deed in the course of God’s natural providence. Sudden 
impressions from outward events, or sudden impulses 
from within, have been known to give an immediate turn 
to character and to produce a settled moral bias and 
mould of mind which has influenced the conduct of the 
individual from that time forward. And we recognize 
the fact of what we call “natural character,’ which is a 
moral habit of mind imparted to the individual at birth, 
causing him to act in a certain way as he grows up. Nor 
is such a doctrine of the implantation of habits by Divine 
power Calvinism ; because it does not follow, if a man is 
endowed with a good habit, that therefore the contingent 
acts of free will are dispensed with in sustaining it. He 
is undoubtedly placed at an advantage in regard to 
moral action; still acts do not in our present state neces- 
sarily flow from habits without any effort of the will, and 
therefore such imparted habits are attended by risk, and 
require the exertion of the will to maintain them. Pri- 
mitive theology represented Adam as created not only 
with the faculty, but with the habit of goodness, but that 
habit did not prevent a fall afterwards by voluntary 
neglect and sin. 

But though there appears to be no objection to assert- 


128 Regeneration of Adults [Parr I. 





ing thata moral habit can be implanted by Divine power, 
a further question is raised when we come to the sacra- 
ment of baptism as the means by which such a habit is 
implanted. For is it reasonable to suppose that a moral 
habit can be imparted to a human being by a particular 
outward rite? Such a result is less startling in the case 
of infants, because the germ and commencement of life 
is itself a kind of mystery, and so harmonizes more 
with such a mysterious creation. But let us place before 
our minds an adult in the full possession of his reason 
and faculties, and we must feel great difficulty in the 
idea of a moral habit bemg formed by an external rite, 
in the grown and mature man. Such an effect of the 
sacrament comes into direct collision with reasonable 
modes of thinking of which we find ourselves possessed. 
There is this important consideration too in the case of 
the adult, that a good disposition is the previous con- 
dition upon which he receives the grace, and therefore 
cannot be the effect of it. And though a good disposition 
may exist without a formed habit, the adult may often 
have the latter as well, and come to baptism already a 
mature Christian in character. 

The case of adult regeneration in baptism has thus 
difficulties peculiar to itself. Were regeneration only 
defined as an admission to an outward covenant and 
spiritual privileges, the way would be clear; but re- 
generation being an inward moral and spiritual habit, 
the question arises whether such a habit is imparted to 
an adult in and by baptism; and the effect of baptism 
upon adults becomes a separate subject for consideration, 
involving peculiar difficulties, apart from those attaching 
in common to the whole baptismal question. 

Theology has accordingly, in its treatment of the 
baptismal question, always trod with peculiar caution 
upon this particular portion of the ground; and the 


Cuap. IX. |] tn Baptism. 129 





questions which arose out of adult baptism ultimately 
produced an opening through which a good deal of 
relaxation and modification of doctrinal language crept 
in. The case of adults from time to time necessitated 
important concessions, and moral considerations were 
allowed to outweigh those of ritual, till at length the 
obsignatory theory triumphed in this particular case, and 
it was decided that the faithful adult was regenerate 
before baptism, though this did not release him from the 
obligation to receive the outward seal of the sacrament. 
The difficulty of a moral and spiritual habit, such as 
regeneration is, being imparted to an adult in baptism, 
was thus got rid of by antedating in his case regene- 
ration to baptism, and regarding him as _ possessing 
the res sacramenti by virtue of his faith and holiness 
before the outward rite. But this explanation was not 
immediately arrived at, but was led up to by a series of 
steps. 

The first of these was the case of unbaptized martyrs. 
Adults possess moral character. They possess evidently 
—some of them—when they have had the advantage of 
Christian instruction, even Christian character, ante- 
cedently to baptism; and this was a fact which the 
greater prevalence of adult baptism, involving as it did a 
constant number of grown-up persons who had though 
unbaptized the Christian faith and temper, brought 
forcibly home to the mind even of the early Church, amid 
all its high regard to sacraments. Could it be said that 
a catechumen who suffered martyrdom for the faith was 
not a member of Christ, because he was not baptized? 
Moral feeling rejected such an idea, and it was decided 
that martyrdom of itself conferred upon him regeneration, 
for which it gained the name of the baptism of blood. 
But the course of concession could not stop here, because 
a catechumen who was not martyred might have the 

K 


130 Regeneration of Adults [Panes 


spirit of a martyr, might have been as willing as the 
other to suffer death for the faith, had he had the call. 
Was such an one then not a member of Christ because 
by accident he had died without baptism? Moral feeling 
- again rejected such an idea, and it was decided that faith 
of itself supplied the place of baptism in the believing 
catechumen. The exception allowed to martyrdom thus 
established, as the next step, a much wider and more 
general modification of the doctrine of baptism ; the ruling 
principle in such concessions being the plain ground of 
morals which must ultimately outweigh any other that 
comes into competition with it, viz. that the acceptable 
thing in the sight of God is actual holiness and goodness, 
and that where this is had no defect of ritual can possibly 
interfere with the individual’s favour in His sight. St. 
Ambrose, therefore, claimed this concession without 
hesitation.® 

But the course of concession could not stop even here, 
for if the act of baptism made a real inward change in 
the pious and believing adult, as compared with his state 
before; if he entered into a new spiritual condition in 
and by that act; to suppose that God supplied the want 
of this to the believing adult who died without baptism, 
by an extraordinary arrangement, was an assumption. 
But it was not satisfactory that so important a claim 
should rest upon so irregular a footing as a mere pious 
assumption; and therefore, as a security to the faithful 
unbaptized, the next step was to modify the effect of 
baptism upon the faithful baptized; and it was decided 
ultimately that the latter possessed the substance of 
regeneration before baptism, and had thus nothing wanting 
in the substance of his spiritual condition for baptism 
afterwards to supply. The regeneration of the faithful 


$ “Qui habuit spiritum tuum, quomodo non accepit gratiam 
tnam.” De obitu Valentiniani consolatio, s. 2. 


Cuap. IX. | in Baptism. 131 


unbaptized thus no longer stood as a divergence from the 
regular doctrine of baptism, but was incorporated in that 
doctrine ; and the success of an exceptional claim resulted 
at last in a modification of doctrinal basis. 

This modification, however, was some time obtaining 
a recognized place in theology. The ordinary language 
of the Fathers does not, perhaps, present any noticeable 
difference in describing the effect of baptism upon 
believing adults, and upon infants,—though, when 
Cyprian in middle life attributes his own regeneration, 
which he pointedly describes as a conversion, to the 
simple rite of baptism, it is difficult to suppose that he 
means such language to be understood quite literally. 
The sudden moral and intellectual change which he relates 
would, as produced by the simple administration of an 
outward rite, have been a miracle, and he does not 
profess to be relating a miracle. 

But, though the ordinary language of the Fathers does 
not present much that is distinctive on the subject of 
adult baptism, occasional modifications appear, especially 
when they have the case of pious believing and instructed 
adults expressly before them. Justin Martyr and Clement 
of Alexandria both appear to sanction the antedating of 
illumination,—which was another term for regeneration, 
—as the growth of discipline and instruction,’ to the 
actual administration of baptism. ‘Tertullian meets the 


* Kandetra 5€ rovTo Td Novtpov Hhariopos, os PortiCopevov thy Sidvo.ay 
T@v tavta pavOavevray, Justin, Apol. 1.1, s.61. Dlumination, 
which is always spoken of by the Fathers as the gift of baptism, 
is here made to precede baptism, as the result of preceding instruc- 
tion. Clement declines tying illumination to the actual rite. "Ore 
d€ 7 yyaous cuvavaréANet TO Hotiopartt, TeplactpdmTovea Toy vovY, Kal 
evbéws axovopev pabnral oi auabeis’ réTepoy Tore, THS paOnoews eExeivns 
mporyevoyerns ; ov yap av €xots eiwety TOY xpdvoy, Potter’s Ed. 
Wot. we 1G. 


o 


Kee 


132 Regeneration of Adults [Parr I. 


question, why a person who has already true Christian 
faith is baptized, seeing that Abraham was justified by 
the sacrament of faith only, and he answers it by saying, 
that before our Lord’s Passion and Resurrection faith 
‘naked ”? was enough; but that, after faith had enlarged 
its subject-matter by the addition of the articles of the 
Nativity, Passion, and Resurrection, “an augmentation 
was added to the sacrament of faith, viz. the seal of 
baptism ; a clothing, as it were, of the faith which hitherto 
was naked.” *® The addition which the sacrament makes 
to faith is explained here as one more of an outer than 
an inner kind; for the body is more the substance of the 
man than the clothing, and faith stands for the body, the 
sacrament for the clothing. Again, in combating the 
idea which persons had that they might live in sin up to 
the time of baptism, relying upon everything being 
wiped off. by that act, he says,—“ Baptism is the seal of 
faith, which faith starts with and is proved by repentance. 
We are not therefore washed that we may cease to sin, 
inasmuch as we are already washed in heart.”° ‘Two 
points may be noted in this language. First, baptism is 
the seal of faith. The explanation of baptism as the seal 
of faith, like the former explanation of it as the clothing 
of faith, does not describe the sacrament as producing 
any change in the substance of the spiritual condition of 
the individual who has already true faith. The substance 
of a document is its language, in which the person engages — 


5 « Buerit salus retro per fidem nudam ante Domini passionem 
et resurrectionem. At ubi fides aucta est credendi in nativitatem, 
passionem, resurrectionemque ejus, addita est ampliatio sacra- 
mento, obsignatio Baptismi vestimentum quodammodo fidei que 
retro erat nuda.” De Bapt. c. 13. 

6 « Tavacrum illud obsignatio est fidei; que fides a poenitentize 
fide incipitur et commendatur. Non ideo abluimur ut delinquere 
desinamus, quoniam jam corde loti sumus.” De Peen. c. 6. 


op) 


Cap. IX. ] 7x Baptism. 13 


\ 


to do such and such things ; the seal is a formal rather than 
a substantial addition. The language even without the 
seal has of itself a binding power, because a man cannot 
declare in words that he will do a thing, and afterwards 
not do it, without being convicted by those very words. 
And therefore, though the law may choose to require the 
addition of the seal, such an addition does not appertain 
to the substance of the document, which lies in the natural 
force of the language composing it. As the seal of faith, 
therefore, baptism does not add anything intrinsic and 
essential to faith. The other point is the assertion, that 
those who come to baptism in a right state of mind are 
already baptized in heart—corde lott. Inward baptism 
is regeneration. 

St. Augustine evidently feels a difficulty when he finds 
himself confronting the case of an adult possessing the 
true Christian faith and temper before baptism, and 
required to state what it is which is effected in such an 
one by baptism. In such a case, he says, ‘‘ What the 
bodily sanctification of the sacrament avails, and what it 
does in the man, it is difficult to say;’ but unless it 
availed much, our Lord would not have received the 
baptism of a servant. So little ought any one, however 
spiritually advanced before baptism, to despise that sacra- 
ment which is applied corporally by the minister, and by 
which God works the spiritual consecration of the man. 
Nor for any other purpose was the office of baptizing 
given to John, than that our Lord who gave it to him 
might, in not disdaining to accept the baptism of a 
servant, commend the path of humility and declare how 
much His own baptism was to be valued. For He foresaw 
that there would not be wanting that pride in some, who 
having attained proficiency of understanding and morals, 


7 “Quid autem valeat et quid agat in homine corporaliter adhibita 
sanctificatio ... difficile est dicere,” &c. See Note 21. 


134 Regeneration of Adults [Past I, 


might rank themselves above many of the baptized in life 
and doctrine ; which would induce them to think baptism 
in their own case superfluous, inasmuch as they would feel 
themselves to have attained already that habit of mind 
to which many baptized persons were still striving to 
ascend.” 

The first remark to make upon this explanation is, that 
the difficulty is felt more clearly than it is answered. The 
writer, however, while he uses many high expressions to 
show the value of baptism in such a case as he describes, 
evidently avoids asserting any substantial inward change 
as the effect of the sacrament. The effect he ascribes to 
it is “a spiritually wrought consecration ;,—an indefinite 
expression, indeed, but one which does not contain the 
idea of a substantial inward change or actual regeneration. 
The appeal also to our Lord’s “fulfilment of righteous- 
ness,” in submitting Himself to John’s baptism, and to 
the duty of humility and not despising ordinances of 
Divine appointment, points rather to an act of obedience, 
conferring a blessing as such, than to the reception of an 
inward substantial change. It is evident, indeed, that 
our Lord’s baptism was an act of simple obedience to a 
positive ordinance without an inward effect: the promi- 
nent use of this case then, as the one on which to rest the 
obligation of the believing adult to submit himself to this 
ordinance, suggests the motive of obedience as the princi- 
pal one enjoined in this and other passages of Augustine. 

The famous maxim of Augustine, “ Legis opera sequun- 
tur justificatum, non preecedunt justificandum,”’ may be 
added to the concessions of antiquity upon this subject. 
This maxim, which mainly affects the question of the part 
which works have in justification, also incidentally, but 
still substantially, affects the question of the part which 
baptism has in justification, in a particular case, viz. in 
the case of the adult who has before baptism practised 


Cuap. IX. |] on Baptism. 135 


good works, or exhibited a good and holy character. 

The result of the maxim is in his case to make justification 

precede baptism ; for, where good works precede baptism, 

a maxim, which antedates justification to good works, still 

more antedates justification to baptism. This celebrated 

maxim of Augustine has indeed been explained as assuming 

that justification is in baptism, and only meaning to assert 
that works after baptism have the exclusive title to the 

name of “ Christian works or righteousness properly so 

called.” But Augustine admits to the fullest extent the’ 
possibility of good works and of Christian works before 

baptism; and therefore this is an artificial explanation of 
this maxim, which must rather be taken as one of those 

Augustinian dicta which qualify the sacramental system, 

and reveal an opening into another and counterbalancing 

one. 

The incidental and desultory concession, however, of the 
Fathers was more methodically adopted by the Schools. 
The Schoolmen were, indeed, so strongly committed to 
the position that the baptismal gift or regeneration was 
an actual habit of goodness, that this concession in the 
case of adults was forced upon them. For what were 
they to say? ‘That an adult had a moral habit im- 
parted to him in and by an outward rite? That was 
plainly unreasonable. And, moreover, the faithful adult 
came with a good disposition already formed to baptism. 
The language of theology accordingly, contrary to the 
general tendency of sacramental statements, which was 
to greater rigidity, became more systematically free on 
this subject. Peter Lombard, who built his structure of 
divinity entirely upon a Patristic basis, hardly professing 
it indeed to be more than a digest of the Fathers, pro- 
nounces distinctly, or rather, what is still more signifi- 
cant, treats it as a point universally admitted, that 
adults who come to baptism in faith and love are, upon 


136 Regeneration of Adults [Part I. 


the strength of this inward disposition, justified or re- 
generate already. 

“Tt is wont to be asked,” he says, “concerning those 
who come with faith and love to baptism, being already 
sanctified by the Spirit, what it is which baptism bestows 
upon them. For it appears to bestow nothing, inasmuch 
as they are already justified by faith and repentance, and 
have received forgiveness of sin. To which it may be 
replied, that those persons have been indeed, through their 
faith and repentance, justified, 1. e. cleansed from the stain 
of sin, and absolved from the debt of eternal punishment : 
yet that they are bound to temporal satisfaction such as 
that to which penitents in the Church are liable. But 
when they receive baptism, they are both cleansed from 
their sins committed, if so be, in the interval after con-. 
version, and are absolved from exterior satisfaction ; and 
assisting grace and every virtue 1s wecreased in the bap- 
tized person, so that be may be called really a new man. 
The fomes peccati also is still more weakened in him. 
Wherefore Jerome saith that the faith which makes men 
believers, is either given or nourished in baptism, because 
to him that hath not it is therein given, and to him that 
hath it is given that he have more. Whoso approaches 
baptism then clean, is therein made cleaner, and to every 
one that hath there is given then more. . . . Wherefore 
baptism confers much even upon one already justified by 
faith ; because coming to baptism he is borne, like the 
branch by the dove, within the ark, having been. before 
within in the judgment of God, but being now within in 
the judgment of the Church.”’ * 


8 « Solet etiam queeri de his qui jam sanctificati spiritu cum fide 
et charitate ad baptismum accedunt, quid eis conferat baptismus. 
Nihil enim eis videtur preestare, cwm per fidem et contritionem jam 
remissis peccatis justificati sunt. Ad quod sane dici potest, eos 
quidem per fidem et contritionem justificatos, i.e. a macula peccati 


Cuap. xX. | an Baptism. a7 


In this statement it is first assumed that adults who 
have faith and love are regenerate before baptism. They 
come to baptism already justified, jam justificati ; and 
justification, as the res sacramenti of baptism,’ is identical 
with regeneration. This assumed, however, the statement 
proceeds to combine with this truth, the reservation of 
something still for baptism to confer; which further 
advantage is pronounced to consist first in visible Church 
membership, and next in an addition made to the inward 
state. Was he clean before? he is now cleaner. Had he 
faith? he has now more faith. Had he virtues? they are 
now increased. But while additions are -left to be con- 
ferred in baptism, the truth is still assumed, as one of 
general consent, that the res sacramenti of baptism is 
possessed by believing adults before baptism. Nor can 
the position laid down in this statement be distinguished in 
any substantial respect from that which the divines of the 
Reformation maintained on the same subject. The divines 
of the Reformation maintained that the faithful adult was 
regenerate before baptism ;’ while at the same time they 


pergatos et a debito ewterne pone absolutos; et tamen adhuc 
teneri satisfactione temporali, qua poenitentes ligantur in Hcclesia. 
Cum autem baptismum percipiunt, et a peccatis que interim post 
conversionem contraxerunt, mundantur, et ab exteriori satisfactione 
absolvuntur ; et adjutrix gratia omnisque virtus in eo augetur, ut 
vere novus homo tune dici posset. Fomes quoque peccati in eo 
amplius debilitatur. Ideo Hier. dicit quod fides que fideles facit, 
in aquis baptismi datur vel nutritur: quia non habenti aliquando 
illi datur, et jam habenti ut plenius habeat datur. Sic et de aliis 
intelligendum est. Qui ergo mundus accedit ibi fit mundior, et 
omni habenti ibiamplius datur ... Multum ergo confert baptismus 
etiam jam per fidem justificato; quia accedens ad baptismum quasi 
ramus a columba portatur in arcam; qui ante erat judicio Dei, sed 
nunc etiam judicio ecclesiz intus est.” Lib. iv. distinct. 4, s. 6. 

9 See p. 115. 

1“ Divines of the Anglican school have also not scrupled to use 
the same language. ‘ Ablution is not the cause, but only the sign 


138 Regeneration of Adults [Part T. 


were perfectly willing to admit the increase, awctio, of the 
Divine gift, in the sacrament.’ 

Lombard then comes to the question, “ Cujus rei 
baptismus, qui datur jam justo, sit sacramentum ;” and 
he settles it in the same way, viz. that, though there is an 
increase of grace given at the time and baptism is a sign 
of this increase, the grace of justification, that grace which 
is the res sacramenti of baptism, is possessed before, and 
baptism is the sign and seal of this preceding grace,— 
“‘Sacramentum rei que preecessit, i.e. remissionis ante 
per fidem date.” ‘ Nec mireris,”’ he adds, “rem aliquando 
precedere sacramentum, cum aliquando etiam longe post 
sequatur.” * 

The doctrinal assumption of Lombard, that the justifica- 
tion of the faithful adult precedes baptism, was accepted 
by a whole line of commentators on the Sentences, and 
by the most distinguished divines of the medizval Church. 
Aquinas acquiesces in it as being a decision “ de baptismo 
eorum qui prius rem sacramenti acceperant,” and asserts 
that the believing adult is before baptism a member of 
Christ spiritually —mentaliter ; to be made one corporally 
and sacramentally in baptism.* ‘‘ One who is justified,” 
says Durandus, “ by the baptism of the Spirit is still bound 
to receive the baptism of water, not for the sake of remedy, 
which he does not need, but on account of the Divine 
precept, and to supply that which is sacramental and 
outward. ... For baptism was instituted not only for a 


of the spiritual grace which is conferred at baptism; and the 
spiritual grace is a consequence of that faith and repentance which 
must precede the ablution.’” Bp. Marsh’s Second Letter to 
Simeon, p. 9. 

2 Note 22. 3 Lombard, lib. iv. distinct. 4, s. 7. 

4 « Adulti prius credentes in Christum ei incorporantur menta- 
liter ; sed postmodum cum baptizantur ei qaodammodo corporaliter, 
scilicet per visibile sacramentum.” Sum. Theol. P. 3, Q. 69, A. 5. 
Also In Lomb. iv. 4. 


Cuap. [X.] in Baptism. 139 
5 paleameta le MRA 02S ASE 


remedy against sin, but also for public utility.”° Brad- 
wardine asserts “the justification of adults before the 
baptism of water, by the baptism of repentance, and the 
baptism of the Spirit through faith.” ® Bellarmine 
maintains asan established truth, that ‘‘ adults are by faith 
and contrition justified before they come actually to the 
sacrament,” and explains their case as analogous to that 
of the fathers of the old law, who received their justifica- 
tion by the instrumentality of faith.’ 

These admissions in the case of believing adults, were 
elicited by the plain force of moral principle. No good- 
ness of fallen man can indeed be pleasing and acceptable 
to God without a Mediator, nor indeed without a Mediator 
can this goodness be attained and exist; but a Mediator 
supposed, and man supposed to have attained to goodness 
and holiness, the moral nature of the Deity requires that 
when this character is presented to Him, He must regard 
it with an absolute favour, which arises immediately upon 


5 «“Justificatus baptismo Flaminis adhuc tenetur baptizar1 bap- 
tismo fluminis, non propter remedium quo non indiget, sed propter 
preceptum divinum et ut suppleatur in eo quod sacramentale est 
et exterius in ritu baptismi, et interius in collatione characteris. 
Baptismus enim institutus est non solum in remedium persone 
contra culpam, sed etiam propter utilitatem publicam et conformi- 
tatis membrorum ecclesiz.” Durandus in Lomb. p. 308. 

6 “Quis non profitetur Concilium Nicenum, ‘Confiteor unum 
baptisma in remissionem peccatorum ? > Multi tamen adulti ante 
baptismum aque seu fluminis, in baptismo Flaminis credendo in 
Christum, et in baptismo poenitentiz a peecatis omnibus sunt 
mundati.” De Causa Dei, p. 414. 

7 «“ Hoc est discrimen inter sacramenta legis veteris et novee, quod 
nostra conferunt gratiam, illa solum eam significabant. Non autem 
est consequens Veteres Patres non habuisse gratiam, aut habuisse 
sine organo applicante Christi merita. Nam etiamsi non habuerunt 
eam per sacramenta, tamen habuerunt per fidem. Sicut nunc adulti 
per fidem et contritionem veram justificantur antequam reipsa ad 
sacramentum accedant.” De Effectu Sacramentorum, L 8. e218. 


140 Regeneration of Adults [Part I. 


the existence of the character, and therefore cannot wait 
for the accident of an external rite. Itis true the renewed 
man is still under an obligation to obey positive ordinances 
of Divine appointment, the voluntary neglect of which is 
therefore contrary to the original supposition of his 
goodness ; but such ordinances cannot make any sub- 
stantial change in his condition, as in God’s sight. No 
new type or mould of the inner man is bestowed upon 
such a person in baptism, because he is already formed 
upon that new pattern. 

Should such an admission as this be regarded by some 
as too great a modification of the doctrine of baptismal 
grace, it should be borne in mind what extreme importance 
attaches to moral considerations, lying as these do at the 
bottom of the whole evidence of religion. We should be 
careful not to let our estimate of sacraments betray us 
into any collision with these. Religious truth is too 
complex indeed to admit of such a supremacy being given 
to the doctrine of sacramental efficacy, as that all other 
considerations must give way to bringing out this one 
truth ; which we must rather be content to hold as a 
limited and modified principle, adjusting it to sound and 
reasonable claims from other quarters. 

It only remains now that this language of the Schools 
with reference to the regeneration of adults in baptism, 
should be considered in connexion with a certain pro- 
minent part of the baptismal language of the Reforma- 
- tion divines. 

There were two positions which were maintained by the 
divines of the Reformation in relation to the regeneration 
of infants in baptism, which though one of them had led 
practically to the other, were still two distinct positions. 
One was that faith must be implanted by prevenient grace, 
in the infant as well asin the adult, before baptism, as the 
condition of his regeneration. The other was that the 


Cuap. IX. ] on Baptism. 141 


existence of this seminal faith in the infant actually con- 
stituted his regeneration ; and that he had really the new 
nature before baptism in that very gift of faith, which 
made him the worthy recipient of baptism; which when 
received was only the seal of a sonship justification and 
adoption already possessed. In the first, then, of these 
two positions, the Reformation divines received no support 
from the Schools. The Schools only regarded regenera- 
tion in baptism as conditional, and requiring antecedent 
faith, in the case of adults. But the first position of the 
Reformation divines with respect to the condition of faith 
in the infant assumed, these divines then received a strong 
support from the Schools for their second position, viz. 
that the infant was regenerate and justified before baptism 
by virtue of this faith. The Schools asserted this of the 
believing adult: on the assumption, then, of the infant’s 
belief, the Reformation divines had the same right to 
antedate the infant’s regeneration before baptism, that 
the Schoolmen had to antedate the adult’s. An antecedent 
inward holiness supposed in both, both stood upon the 
same ground with respect to an antecedent regeneration 
by virtue of it. 

When the divines of the Reformation, then, came to 
construct their obsignatory theory of baptism, they found 
the basis of it ready to hand in the Scholastic doctrine 
of adult baptism. ‘Theirs was indeed a larger and com- 
pleter scheme, but the foundation was laid for it. They 
took up the theory which the Schools had confined to 
adults, and applied it to infants. The Schools drew a 
sharp line of demarcation between infants and adults as 
recipients of baptism; the Reformation divines over- 
threw this distinction, and reduced both cases to one 
principle; but it was a difference about infants as a 
class of recipients that constituted the difference between 
the Scholastic and Reformed doctrines of baptism, and 


142 Regeneration of Adults [Panwd) 





not a difference about the obsignatory theory itself, which 
in substance preceded the Reformation. The two Schools 
differed in their application of the doctrine of prevenient 
grace, one limiting the need of this grace for implanting 
faith to adults, the other extending it to infants; but 
both treated the grace which preceded regeneration as 
regeneration itself. Nor was the difference between the 
two on the head of regeneration before baptism, but 
only as to the cases which came under this head. 

One result of the present and previous inquiries will be 
noticed in conclusion, viz. the important latitude and 
modification which is gained for the traditionary doctrine 
that regeneration is “in baptism.” 

The formula or phrase that regeneration is “in bap- 
tism ” appears at first sight to imply that regeneration 
must always take place at the moment of baptism, 
and that if it does not take place then, it does not 
take place at-all. This is the meaning which the 
naked phrase conveys, apart from all comment and in- 
terpretation: but when we come to the comment and 
interpretation by which this phrase has been in fact 
attended, we find that, in its actual use and _—ac- 
ceptation, it by no means contains so rigid a position 
as the one just mentioned, but allows of very large ex- 
ceptions to regeneration “im baptism ;’’ exceptions, in- 
deed, so large and formal as to amount to counter rules. We 
observed before, in the case of the Fictus, the admission 
that the rite of baptism precedes the grace by an indefi- 
nite interval in all unbelieving adults ; we have now the 
admission that the grace precedes the rite by an inde- 
finite interval in all believing adults. The result of both 
admissions taken together was, that no adult whatever 
was regenerate “im” baptism, but always either before 
or after: if believing, before ; if unbelieving, after. The 
formula then that regeneration is ‘‘ in baptism,” allowed 
in actual use and acceptation for the exception of the 


Cuap. IX. ] in Baptism. 143 


whole class of adult recipients. It might have been 
thought indeed beforehand that, though the subsequence 
of the grace to the rite in one whole class of cases was 
allowed, the theologians of the ante-Reformation period 
would still have opposed its precedence, as apparently 
contradictory to the relation of cause and effect between 
the rite and the grace. But in matter of fact the latter 
concession appears to have been made as easily as the 
former; Lombard only saying, “ Nec mireris rem ali- 
quando (i.e. in the whole class of believing adults) pre- 
cedere sacramentum, cum aliquando etiam longe post 
sequatur, ut in illis qui ficte accedunt.”’ § 

When divines of the Reformation then applied the 
same language to infants, whom they sometimes spoke of 
as regenerate before baptism by virtue of an antecedent 
implanted faith, and sometimes as regenerate after bap- 
tism by virtue of a subsequently obtained faith,°® they did 
not say anything more counter to the formula “in bap- 
tism” than the Schoolmen had done before them. They 
only interpreted the formula as open to the same excep- 
tion, in the case of infants, to which the Schoolmen had 
treated it as open in the case of adults.’ 

Indeed, on so mysterious a subject as the connexion of 
a spiritual grace with an outward sign, especially with 
other causes of complication, and different cases arising 
calling for modifications of doctrine to suit them, we can- 
not be surprised if the precise coincidence of the sign 
and the thing signified in point of time has given way ; 
and if this formula has from allowing various exceptions, 


8 L. iv. distinct. 4, s. 7. 9 See Note 22. 

1 Even Mr. Gorham’s extreme statement, which he elsewhere 
qualified, that “the filial state is given to the worthy recipient 
before baptism, not in baptism” (Examination, p. 113), does not 
appear to be more than Lombard’s statement, that the adult is 
justified by faith before baptism—jam per fidem justificatus, applied 
to the infant. 


144 Regeneration of Adults [Parr [. 


at last, as we may say, included such exceptions, and be- 
come a large and general heading, comprehending dif- 
ferent relations of precedence and consequence. 

This part of the subject has an important bearing again 
upon the interpretation of baptismal services. ‘The an- 
cient baptismal offices imply in their form that the person, 
whether adult or infant, is unregenerate up to the moment 
of baptism, and regenerate immediately upon baptism. 
But the history of the doctrine of baptism shows that 
this form of the Baptismal Office does not represent an 
actual doctrine to this effect. First we have it ruled 
from the very commencement, in the case of the Fictus 
or unbelieving adult, that baptism may precede regenera- 
tion by an indefinitely long interval. But the Service in 
every case asserts that the baptized person is regenerate 
then and there. The character of the Service, then, as 
speaking doctrinally upon the point of time, altogether 
breaks down under the pressure of actual received inter- 
pretation; the Service saying one thing, and the doc- 
trine of baptism, as ruled in the case of the Fictus, 
saying another. And it must be observed that the lati- 
tude of construction now mentioned as attaching to the 
time of regeneration asserted in the Service, is distinct 
from and additional to the hypothetical construction of 
the fact of regeneration asserted in the Service, which is 
in the case of the adult the universally admitted con- 
struction. Again, and on the other hand, we have it 
laid down in the received Scholastic doctrine of adult 


2 The case of the Fictus involved a double latitude in the con- 
struction of the Church’s Baptismal Office. First the assertion in 
the office that he was regenerate had to be construed hypothetically, 
as made upon the assumption of his faith and repentance; and, 
secondly, the assertion that he was regenerate then had to be in- 
terpreted as consistent with a regeneration coming subsequently 
upon the fulfilment of conditions. 


Cuap. IX. |] in Baptism. 145 





baptism, that regeneration, or justification, which was 
the term then more in use in theology, may precede bap- 
tism by an indefinitely long interval; whereas the form 
of the Baptismal Service assumes that every person 1s 
unregenerate up to the moment of baptism. The charac- 
ter of the Service, then, as speaking doctrinally upon the 
point of time, again breaks down under the pressure of 
actual authorized interpretation ; and we find now that 
the form of service is consistent with the person being 
regenerate before baptism, as we found above that it was 
consistent with his being regenerate not till after bap- 
tism. Upon the point of time, then, the Service is not 
doctrinal, and the declaration of the fact of regeneration 
upon baptism allows for its ewistence either before bap- 
tism, or not till after baptism. The history of the 
doctrine of baptism is a comment upon the Church’s 
ritual language, and a comment which fixes this latitude 
of construction upon it. 

Nor was it more than the application of the same 
liberty to another case, when divines of the Reformation 
treated the: language of the Baptismal Office as open to 
the same interpretation in the case of infants. The posi- 
tion of these divines was that the new nature was not 
conferred upon the infant in the actual instant of baptism, 
but antecedently in that gift of implanted faith which 
he had before baptism, and of which the sacrament was 
the seal; and they interpreted the Baptismal Service with 
a latitude in harmony with this position, regarding the 
declaration of the fact of regeneration upon baptism, as 
consistent with its existence before baptism. But this m- 
terpretation in the case of infants no more violated the 
natural meaning of the Service, than the same interpre- 
tation did in the case of adults; for the apparent assump- 
tion that the person is unregenerate up to the moment of 
baptism, is, and always has been, exactly the same, in 

L 


146 Regeneration of Adults in Baptism. 


Baptismal Offices, in the case of infants and of adults. 
The Baptismal Service, then, had already contracted a 
latitude of construction on this point, before it came under 
Reformation comment and treatment; and the divines of 
that epoch only copied and extended a precedent which 
had been handed down to them from the Schools. 


CHAPTER X 
REGENERATION OF INFANTS IN BAPTISM 


Tue Scriptural sense of the term “regenerate” having 
been decided in a previous chapter, the question arises 
whether, in this sense, viz. that of actual goodness, the 
term can legitimately be applied to all baptized infants. 

The notion then may, I think, at once be set aside as 
altogether untenable, that infants just born can be pious 
and virtuous agents; but though this is impossible from 
the immaturity of nature, it may still be asked whether 
they are not capable of possessing actual’ goodness and 
holiness in some sense and manner. It is true, it may be 
said, adults alone come under consideration in Scripture, 
and therefore the regenerate state in Scripture is de- 
scribed as the goodness of the adult, the goodness of 
actual life and conduct. But are we debarred on that 
account from giving the term an application to infants, in 
some way and manner, corresponding to the difference in 
the stage of life, and in proportion with an incipient and 
embryo reason ? 

I answer that if this claim is conceded, we must still 
take care that in transferring the term from the adult to the 
infant, we do not reduce its sense below the Scriptural one, 
and altogether alter the meaning of the word. We must 
only make such difference in its application to the infant, 


1 T use the word actual throughout this treatise only to express 
goodness itself, as distinguished from the capacity for it: not, of 
course, as implying action. 

L 2 


148 Regeneration of Lnfants [Parr I. 


as is required by the difference of his condition; and not 
under colour of consulting the capacity of the recipient, 
totally change the nature of the gift. 

1. An infant is not regenerate in the sense of being 
actually good, if he has only a new capacity for goodness 
implanted in him at baptism. A faculty or capacity for 
attaining goodness is a totally different thing from good- 
ness, the power altogether a distinct thing from the fact. 
It matters not by what name we call such a new spiritual 
faculty. A “new nature” in the sense only of new im- 
planted faculties and capacities, does not constitute a being 
actually good. The inhabitation of the Holy Spirit, as a 
prompting and assisting Divine influence within the soul, 
does not make that soul actually good. The inward im- 
pulse to good which exists in man by nature, does not 
make him morally good; no more does the peculiar and 
higher impulse under the Gospel make him spiritually 
good. By no exaltation, then, of the rank or magnitude of 
a new spiritual faculty, as a faculty, can we make that 
faculty to be actual goodness; otherwise the most abomi- 
nably vicious man may be simultaneously a virtuous 
man; for the most depraved person may possess in the 
lowest depth of his guilt and pollution, the capacity for 
the very highest form of goodness. 

2. An infant is not made actually good in baptism, if 
he is only freed from the guilt of original sin ; because 
the cessation of the imputation of sin does not constitute 
goodness, which is a positive quality, and consists in a 
good moral character or habit; not possessing which he 
would be, notwithstanding such remission of original sin, 
in a morally neutral and indeterminate state.’ 

3. An infant is not made good in baptism by being 
admitted into a new federal state or covenant with God ; 


2 See Chapter iv. 


Cuap. X.] in Baptism. 149 


because this federal state, so far as divines explain it, is 
only a combination of the two states just mentioned, viz. 
forgiveness of sin, and the opportunity, by means of the 
enabling grace of God, of attaining salvation. 

It may be suggested, however, that there still remains 
a mode in which the infant may be made actually good in 
baptism, viz. by what is called implanted character. Im- 
planted character is represented as more than a faculty 
for attaining a particular character, and yet not that 
character in full existence and literal operation, i.e. as a 
seminal or rudimental character—like implanted reason 
which is in the infant, but only in a latent, unconscious, 
and incipient stage.* It may be said that in ordinary life 
we recognize what we call “natural character,” i.e. a 
certain original moral conformation belonging to the in- 
dividual from his birth, and coming out with the advance 
of his reason; that in the same way the Christian or 
spiritual character may be implanted in an infant at 
baptism, and that the infant endowed with this character 
is regenerate in the Scriptural sense of the word. 

If infants then can be regenerate at all in baptism in 
the Scriptural sense, implying actual goodness, they only 
can be in this sense just mentioned, this qualified and 
accommodated sense of actual goodness—accommodated 
to their special case ; 1.e. by having actual goodness in a 
rudimental and seminal form, or a seminal character or 
habit implanted in them in baptism. And therefore the 
alternative lying between this kind of regeneration, or 
none at all for them in the Scriptural sense, the question 


3 I use character in the common English sense. 

4 «The reasonable soul is infused so soon as the body of an 
infant is organized and made capable of such an inhabitant: yet it 
doth not presently act, or enable the rofant to act rationally so 
soon as it is infused... . So is it in the spiritual being.” Burgess 
on Bapt. Reg. of Infants, p. 265. 


150 Regeneration of Infants [Part I. 


is whether all infants are regenerated in this way in 
baptism. 

On this question, then, I need hardly call attention, in 
the first place, to this inevitable result, that 7f this im- 
planted character does universally accompany infant bap- 
tism, it must show itself in those infants as they grow up, 
and show itself in all of them, coming out with the 
advance of their reason and faculties. Only waiting the 
growth of nature, it must manifest itself as nature opens 
out, and manifest itself in the ordinary way in which 
character is wont to do. - It may not be necessary, indeed 
—though we may easily make too free with such a sup- 
position, when as a matter of fact “ implanted character ” 
is so rarely lost—it may not be necessary that such im- 
planted goodness should, having come out, always con- 
tinue: becatise goodness, even if implanted, may require © 
the concurrence of free will to sustain it, and therefore 
may in course of time, for want of this attention, be 
lost. But even granting this, before it is lost, it must 
have appeared, and appeared as the character of the 
man. 

Let us take the case, already referred to, of what we 
call a “ natural”? character. It is commonly considered 
that certain moral tempers are natural in some persons, 
or belong to them from their birth, that one man is 
naturally meek and gentle, another zealous, another 
brave, and so on. But what is the test of the fact of 
such tempers having been implanted? Evidently their 
actual appearance in the individual. Nobody would 
think of talking of a natural temper in a man, which 
temper however had never come out and never been 
seen. The exhibition of it by the individual is essential 
to the fact of its original implanting. In the same way 
it would be absurd to speak of spiritual goodness, or the 
Christian character having been implanted in those in 


Cuap. X. ] on Baptism. 51 


whom, as they grew up, this character never came out 
and became apparent. 

What impediment is there which can be supposed in 
the case, such as can be accepted as a valid reason for the 
non-appearance of this character in those in whom it has 
been by the hypothesis implanted, as those persons grow 
up and show character of some sort or other? Have they 
lost it by unseen internal wrong acts before they have had 
the opportunity of showing it outwardly? Such a sup- 
position would be absurd, because as the infant becomes 
a moral agent, and becomes capable of inward action, he 
also becomes capable of outward. The character, then, is 
by the supposition in him, and before anything can have 
intervened to suppress that character, he acts, he reveals 
himself, he expresses what is in him. Why does he not — 
express, why does he not act according to that character ? 
His own action could alone destroy that implanted cha- 
racter, if it was in him, and therefore that character is 
necessarily in him up to the moment that he begins to act ; 
and therefore that same character must be in him simul- 
taneously with his first action, and expression of himself ; 
and therefore that same character must come out and 
manifest itself in that first general behaviour, manifest 
itself on the whole. Tull he is a moral agent he can have 
done nothing to counteract this character, still less to 
suppress and extinguish it; as soon as he isa moral agent 
he shows it. Where is the interval then between the 
point up to which this character is by the hypothesis 
secure, and the point at which it becomes, if it exists, 
visible, in which this character can be effaced and de- 
stroyed? There is in the very nature of things no such 
interval; and therefore it is impossible that a certain 
positive character and temper should have been implanted 
in the infant by a Divine act, and yet that it never should 
from the first have appeared in him, never come out, and 


152 Regeneration of Infants [Part I. 





never have been observed by those who were constantly 
with him, and watching all his actions, words, and moral 
symptoms. Such a supposition is plainly absurd and un- 
tenable, contrary to every principle of common sense and 
every rule of evidence. 

Were it a case of adults, every one would see imme- 
diately how absurd it would be to ascribe a religious and 
virtuous character to them which never appeared; but 
infants being the subject, the necessity for expression 
appears to some to be done away with altogether, because 
it is deferred, and implanted goodness, because it is 
seminal at the time, seems to entail no manifestation of 
it either then or ever. But the law of expression is as 
certain in the case of the infant as in the case of the 
adult ; its operation only is suspended. The character, 
if it is there, is not relieved from the necessity of ex- 
pressing itself when it can, because it was excused from 
expressing itself before it could. Nor must we try by 
representing goodness when it is present as seminal, and 
when the time comes for showing itself as lost ; by ex- 
cusing first the infant in respect of the future, and then 
the moral agent in respect of the past, to elude the law of 
expression altogether, and balk manifestation at both 
ends. This is the turning-point of the whole case. If 
persons think that actual goodness can be implanted in 
infants without any appearance or manifestation of it 
whatever, earlier or later, either when they are infants 
and cannot show it, or afterwards as they grow up and 
can: if they think that this goodness can be, not a sus- 
pended disclosure, but a permanent secret, totally passing 
away and vanishing before one single presentation to 
human cognizance, then the absence from the very first 
of all visible signs of such a character will be no proof to 
them that it has not been implanted, and they will alto- 
gether deny the relevance of the test of fact in the matter. 


Cap. X. | in Baptism. 153 





But if, on the other hand, it is admitted that if actual 
goodness is implanted in an infant at baptism, it must 
come out and show itself in him as he grows up, then the 
criterion of fact must apply, and the absence of such 
appearance be taken as proof against such implantation. 
It may be urged, indeed, that an infant may possess 
actual goodness, not only in the sense of a seminal habit, 
but also in the sense of a process having commenced in 
him, or a gradual work of the Holy Spirit, by means of 
which he will one day attain actual goodness ; and that 
such a process begun in him does not require any mani- 
festation of character immediately upon the growth of 
reason, but only when the character itself is completed, 
which may be at any time of life near or remote. It 
appears to me that if the former sense be a fair liberty 
taken with the actual goodness of Scripture, this latter 
is a decided strain upon it; because if we allow that an 
implanted habit, which is ready for action upon physical 
power and opportunity being given, is present goodness, 
it is still a different thing to allow that an infant is now 
good because the process of the formation of such a habit 
has commenced in him, which may not be completed till 
after a whole adult life of sin. Provided, however, this 
process is an infallible one and the issue certain, 1t may 
be granted that, in an incorrect and metaphorical sense, 
he may be called good now as being so to the Divine 
prescience; because we represent God as regarding 
things as they are in their end, and this end as already 
present to the Divine eye. But if this sense of actual 
goodness is allowed, it must be remembered that it is so 
only on the condition that the issue 7s certain, because 
the future fact must be first supposed and assumed in 
order to be antedated. There can be no pretence for 
calling a being actually good, who is neither good now 
nor can give any guarantee that he ever will be. And 


154 Regeneration of Infants [| Parr 





if this condition is granted, then exactly the same 
criterion of fact decides whether this process has begun 
in all baptized infants, which decides whether the habit 
has been implanted in them. Because in that case all 
baptized infants must at any rate become good men, if 
they live, at some stage of life or other, early or remote. 
Indeed this infallible process is what the Calvinist places 
in the elect. | 

It is, indeed, common to say that a “ seed ’’ of goodness 
is implanted in all infants in baptism, but that it is not 
necessary that this seed should produce fruit; but a seed 
that need not produce fruit is not actual goodness, but 
only a metaphorical name for an implanted faculty. If 
this “seed” 7s in any sense actual goodness, it must, 
whether as a seminal character or the beginning of an 
infallible process, produce actual goodness; and then the 
test of visible fact is what must decide whether this seed 
has been implanted.° 

The test then of the character having been implanted, 


5 The “implanted goodness” about which the question is raised 
in this chapter is identical with the “infused habit,” or habitualis 
gratia of the Schools, discussed in Chapter vii. The “infused 
habit ’’ of the Schools was a seminal character or disposition which 
was implanted in the infant at baptism; and it got the name of 
habitualis gratia, or habit of grace, because it was an elementary 
habit implanted by grace. The Schoolmen decided against the 
whole evidence of facts, which they met by the evasions and re- 
finements noticed in Chapter vii., that this habit of goodness was 
implanted in all infants in baptism. 

The Calvinists of the Reformation adopted the habitualis gratia 
or habituale principium gratic, of the Schools, in the sense how- 
ever, not of an implanted habit, but the commencement of a process, 
or course of operation on the part of the Holy Spirit, which con- 
tinued till the individual reached the habit of goodness, which 
might be at any point of life, early or late (see Chapter viii.). 
They assigned this gift however to the elect only, not to all the 
baptized. 


Crap. X.] nm Baptism. 155 





being the appearance of it in the individual as he grows 
up, does this character, as a matter of fact, appear in 
every baptized infant as he grows up? Or do we not 
rather, as a plain matter of fact, see the greatest mixture 
in every rising Christian generation ; some exhibiting a 
religious character, and others—the majority it must be 
said—not doing so? Indeed, if, side by side with the 
supposition of an actual goodness universally implanted 
in baptism, we place the real state of the case, what an 
unaccountable annihilation have we of an immense spiritual 
formation,—not, be it observed, destroyed by neglect, but 
never once apparent,—gone for ever, before it to human 
eye existed, and extinguished before the first perceptible 
dawn of moral agency. What an unmeaning, absurd, 
and incredible abortion have we here !—a whole world 
of character annihilated before it has begun, and a 
whole moral creation effaced before all visible moral 
action. 

What a peculiar stamp again would, upon this suppo- 
sition, be impressed upon all want of religion among 
Christians. All want of religion in people who had been 
baptized would, according to this supposition, be a fall 
from previous individual piety and virtue, and would 
present itself to us in that aspect. But do we look upon 
it as such? It is true that, as a race, we are fallen from 
our first estate in paradise; and it is true that we are all 
personally fallen from the natural innocence of infancy, 
in the sense that we are guilty of sins from which the 
immaturity of infancy saved us; but that, as distinct 
from these two changes, the common run of sinfulness 
in Christians is a fall from a previously spiritual and 
gracious character, is obviously untrue, and such an 
aspect of it is plainly artificial. 

There is nothing, then, in the facts of the world around 
us, to show that a seminal character or habit of goodness 


156 Regeneration of Infants [Panne 


may not be implanted in some infants at baptism; but 
to maintain that it is implanted in all is to maintain 
something which does altogether contradict plain facts. 
But such being the case, all infants are not regenerate 
in baptism in the Scriptural sense; for the Scriptural 
sense implies actual goodness, and this actual goodness 
can only by possibility be possessed by infants in the 
shape of this seminal and implanted goodness. Senses 
short of the Scriptural one do not indeed involve any 
collision with facts, because an implanted faculty, simple 
remission of original sin, admission to a covenant, involve 
no phenomenon of goodness as the consequence, and 
therefore provoke no challenge of this kind.. But if we 
take the word in its Scriptural sense, the application of 
it to all baptized infants incurs this test and is plainly 
contradicted by the facts of our experience. 

What are the objections, then, to this conclusion, in 
the silence of Scripture on the whole subject? Did 
Scripture assert indeed the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism, this conclusion would place us in opposition to 
an assertion of Scripture. But, imasmuch as Scripture 
nowhere asserts or implies this, if we assert it, when we 
cannot reconcile the assertion with the Scriptural sense 
of regeneration, the difficulty is of our own making. 

1. But it will be said in the first place that we must 
not test the truth of a mysterious Divine act in a sacra- 
ment by its “visible fruits.” But where a Divine act is 
defined in its very nature to be such as that “visible fruits”’ 
must proceed from it, if it has really taken place, this is 
a reasonable and a necessary test to apply. It is no 
presumptuous objection of rationalism, but it is the 
natural criterion of the existence of the Divine act in 
question. The test of “visible fruits ” is one which we 
cannot indiscriminately condemn as inapplicable to all 
Divine acts as such ; it depends on the nature of the act 


Cap. X.] 2 Baptism. 157 


whether this test properly apples to it or not. Were 
the Divine act one of implanting a spiritual faculty only, 
such a test would be an impertinent and irrelevant one, 
because the existence of the faculty is consistent with 
the total neglect of it by the individual, and therefore 
with the absence of all visible fruits. But the act in 
question being that of implanting a character, this test 
does properly and necessarily apply to it, for if the 
character had been implanted it would have shown itself, 
i.e. there would have been visible fruits. 

2. The ground of mystery will be appealed to against 
the test of fact; the argument being that regeneration is 
too mysterious a thing for such an argument to be founded 
upon its meaning. ‘lo that extent, however, to which a 
state is clearly described in Scripture, in language ad- 
dressed to our natural understanding, such a state is not 
a mystery to us, but a thing known; and it is an illegi- 
timate use of the ground of mystery to employ it to in- 
tercept the natural argument from such plain meaning 
of Scripture where we have it. Regeneration is plainly 
described in Scripture as a state of actual goodness, 
and if it is described as such, we have a right in 
deciding the existence of regeneration, to apply those 
tests by which we ascertain the existence of actual 
goodness. 

3. This objection of fact again to the supposition of 
the universal regeneration of infants at baptism, will be 
met with the answer that regeneration is a “ past act,” 
which is not interfered with by any amount or duration 
of subsequent wickedness in the individual who has under- 
gone it. Much stress is laid upon this distinction, and it 
is observed that in the passages in the New Testament in 
which the Divine act of regenerating is directly or indi- 
rectly referred to, the verb which expresses it is put in 
a past tense in the original, though our translation does 


158 Regeneration of Infants [ Pano: 


not give it so; thereby showing, it is said, that regene- 
ration is a past act. But though regeneration, as being 
a “ past act,” is quite consistent with a present bad cha- 
racter in the individual, it is not consistent with there 
never having appeared a former good one. And it is not 
the subsequent rise of the bad character which is the 
objection to be met here, but the previous non-appearance 
of the good one. The “act” may be past, but if it is of 
the nature here supposed, we have a right toask for some 
fruits of it, present or past. 

4, The argument just quoted is sometimes put into the 
form of a distinction between regeneration as an act, and 
regeneration as a state. A person, it is said, may not be in 
the state of regeneration, or of actual goodness, and yet 
the act of regeneration implanting such goodness in him, 
may have passed over him. This is a true distinction, but 
not at all to the point. Regeneration is doubtless an act 
of God, as well as a state of man, but the act involves the 
existence at some time of the state, and the state, even if 
it has ceased now, still involved visible fruits before its 
termination. 

5. The test of fact again is met by the answer that this 
implanted goodness is not indefectible. It has been lost, 
we are told, and that accounts for your not seeing it now. 
Yes, but before we talk of it being lost, let it first be 
ascertained that it was ever had. The objection of fact 
which is here raised is no Calvinistic one ; it is based upon 
uo peculiar theory of grace, and indeed upon no theory 
whatever ; but upon the simple and plain ground of com- 
mon sense that if a character has been implanted in an 
individual, it must somehow or other appear and show 
itself. In the case of what we call a natural character, or 
a character implanted by nature, we make it necessary 
that it should come out, and if it never comes out, then we 
say it has not been implanted. And on the same prin- 


Crap. X.] an Baptism. 159 


ciple, if a character has been implanted in a man by 
grace, that character must come out, and if it never 
comes out, then we must say that it never has been 
implanted. 

6. The loss, however, asserted under the last head, of 
all this once existing goodness, is sometimes explained 
and defended by the supposition of a universal early 
fall. A particular kind of language is in use in some 
quarters, which assumes a universal early lapse from bap- 
tismal goodness. But what is it which is meant by this 
language? In the first place, it is not the fall of the race 
from original righteousness, but a universal personal fall 
from baptismal goodness, which is asserted. But if we 
examine the different meanings in which this assertion can 
be understood,—for writers are not very clear in it,—we 
shall find that there is either some confusion in the idea of 
baptismal goodness, or a mistake in the fact that there 
has been such an universal lapse from this goodness. Do 
they mean to assert the loss of the natural innocence of 
infancy ? The loss is true, but the thing lost is no result 
of baptism. Do they mean to assert the loss of a state of 
pardon resulting from the remission of original sin, in 
the absence of capacity for actual? If that state has 
been lost, that state did not constitute goodness.® Lastly, 
do they mean the loss of an implanted habit or character of 
goodness? That may be admitted to be goodness; but 
then that goodness has not been universally lost, because 
if it had been, it would have appeared as universally before 
the loss. 

I may conclude by observing that the whole weight of 
Anglican authority is against the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism in the sense of an implantation of 
actual goodness in them.’ Bishop Bethell, who may be 


6 See Chapter iv. 7 Note 23. 


160 Regeneration of Infants [ Part I. 


taken as a legitimate representative of the English School, 
pointedly repudiates the idea that any ‘change of affec- 
tions or inward feelings, or creation or infusion of moral 
habits or virtues,” ® is implied in baptismal regeneration ; 
and allows that, if it were, the doctrine of the regenera- 
tion of all infants in baptism would be untenable, and 
contrary to experience. ‘If it were,” he says, “a self- 
evident truth that regeneration is an implantation of a 
habit of grace, containing in it the habits of all Christian 
graces and virtues, or that it is a radical change of all 
the parts and faculties of the soul, it might be absurd to 
suppose that those infants who, as they grow up, exhibit 
no signs of spiritual habits or dispositions, have been rege- 
nerated in baptism.” But, he adds, ‘ that sound masculine 
theology which our Church has adopted, knows nothing 
of these speculations, which are inconsistent with Serip- 
tural truth and simplicity, the experience of human nature, 
and the frame and constitution of the human soul:”® and 
he defines regeneration as the “ potential principle of a 
new life, independently of its moral operations and legi- 
timate effects,’ combined with “ forgiveness of sin.” ' 
Bishop Bethell’s argument so far differs, then, from my 
own, that he denies first that regeneration itself implies 
actual goodness, even in its true and Scriptural sense, in 
which I think he is mistaken ; and secondly, that he ap- 
pears to assert that the implantation of the actual habit of 
goodness in the creature by Divine grace, is “ contrary to 
the frame and constitution of the human soul ;” in which 
also I think him mistaken ;* but his argument entirely 


8 Treatise on Regeneration, p. 165. Pref. p. 30. 

9 Thid. 124, 127. ‘1 Thid. 120. 

2 Bp. Bethell, as a disciple of the Fathers, could hardly have 
remembered when he laid down this principle, that the Fathers 
always represent Adam as created im goodness, 1.e. as commencing 
existence with the habit already created in him. 


Cuap. X. | an Baptism. 161 





agrees with that of this chapter upon the question of fact 
which is at issue in it, viz. whether regeneration in the 
sense of actual goodness is conferred upon all infants in 
baptism ; deciding positively that it is not, and that it 
would be contrary to experience to assert that it was.* 


3 Another authority on this subject, Mr. Davison, in arguing 
for the universal regeneration of infants in baptism, is also par- 
ticular in telling us in what sense he understands the word in this 
assertion ; that he does not “conceive of regeneration as either 
inducing a present habit of moral holiness, or as determining the 
formation of it afterwards ”*—as “including the conversion of the 
man to Christian principles in act or habit,” but as “a state of 
grace, with promise of pardon for sin, and aid of heavenly power.” 
Remains, pp. 323, 346, 327. 


CHAPTER XI 
SECONDARY AND INCORRECT SENSES OF REGENERATION 


We have only dealt hitherto with the true sense of the 
term regenerate, but the term in the hands of theologians 
contracted, in course of time, secondary and incorrect 
senses, which deserve attention. By a secondary sense I 
mean a sense which, while it claims a right of use, pro- 
fesses to be a secondary and not the true sense; by an 
incorrect sense I mean a sense which is incorrect, with the 
profession of being true. I will take these two classes of 
untrue senses in order, and first notice the secondary 
senses of the term. 

1, A technical or conventional sense of regenerate early 
grew up in the Church, according to which it simply stood 
for the visible fact of being baptized, as where it was said 
that Constantine was regenerated, and Constantius was 
not regenerated, and the like. Whether or not such a 
sense rose out of the recognized language of supposition 
in use in the New Testament, according to which all the 
baptized were presumed to be regenerate in heart and 
life, it is of common use in early writings. It is well 
known that this term was in Jewish use before it was 
adopted by the new dispensation, and that as a Jewish 
term it contracted a technical meaning, and stood for the 
admission of a proselyte, which took place by baptism. 
“The common phrase,’ says Wall, “was to call the 
baptism of a proselyte his regeneration or new birth.” ’ It 


1 Oxford Ed. vol. i. p. 31. 


Secondary and Incorrect Senses, &c. 163 


contracted the same conventional sense in the Christian 
Church, which “ appropriated,’”’ as Wall says, “the word 
regeneration as much to signify baptism as we do the 
word christening,’’? 1. e. as a convertible term for it. 

2. A tendency existed in the Cyprianic and Donatist 
controversies to create a use of the term “ regenerate ” in 
a secondary sense, as standing for the baptismal character. 
The nature of the baptismal character has been explained 
in a previous chapter,’ viz. that it is a certain universal 
and irremoveable effect of baptism, belonging to it as a 
sacrament which can only be administered once, and does 
not admit of repetition,—a title which it confers once for 
all upon every baptized person to the grace of the sacra- 
ment, upon fulfilling the conditions; admitting him to the 
grace upon subsequent fulfilment, even when he did not 
receive it at the time he was baptized from the absence 
of fulfilment; and reinstating him in the grace upon the 
return of fulfilment, even when he has lost it by the 
cessation of fulfilment. It was this conditional ttle to 
grace as distinguished from grace itself. When this 
particular effect of baptism was brought out prominently, 
as it was by the controversies just mentioned, various 
names were employed to denote and express it—inteyri- 
tas sacramenti—veritas sacramenti—visibilis sanctificatio, 
and others. St. Augustine, however, occasionally goes 
further, and though he never calls it regeneration, applies 
to it terms somewhat like and parallel. The Church, he 
says, “ brings forth all by baptism—omnes per baptismum 
parit—either out of her own womb or out of another’s,”’ 4 
1.e.in her own or a schismatical communion. Even a 
schismatical communion produces sons—generat filios—by 
baptism, though not as schismatical, but as having a bond 
of union with the true Church, “ non ex hoc generat unde 

2 Vol. i. p. 59. 3 Chapter iii. 
* De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. i. ¢. 15. 
M 2 


164 Secondary and Incorrect [Parr I. 


separata est,” but ‘ex hoc unde conjuncta est.”*> When 
wicked men receive baptism within the Church, the Church 
brings them forth as Rebecca brought forth Hsau ; when 
they receive baptism outside of the Church they are 
“ generated in God’s people from Sarah, but through Agar, 
—tales in Dei populo generantur Sara quidem, sed per 
Agar.” ® Here baptism in a state of sin and ina state of 
schism, in neither of which cases the regenerating grace 
of it is received, is still spoken of as a kind of spiritual 
birth ; though, in the nature of the case, this is using the 
expression in a secondary sense, inasmuch as in its true 
sense it necessarily implies present grace.’ 


> De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. i. c. 10. STbid, c/1G; 

7 The establishment of the validity of schismatical baptism has 
been supposed to have a tendency in the direction of ecclesiastical 
comprehensiveness. It only admits however the spiritual instru- 
mentality of a schismatical communion on one point, viz. the 
bestowal of the baptismal character; this is an effect which dis- 
tinctly stops short of grace; and it is the being a channel of grace 
which decides that a communion belongs to the Church. <Augus- 
tine says, “ Ecclesia omnes per baptismum parit, sive apud se, sive 
extra se.” This implies some common ground between schismatical 
bodies and the Church, but not such a common ground as makes 
them parts of the Church. He allows a common baptismal charac- 
ter; but this does not test a Church, because it is not grace. 
When the baptized person has abandoned his state of schism, his 
baptism operates as an instrument of grace, but not before, because 
the communion in which he was before was not part of the Church. 
Thus the same law of baptism which implied something in common 
between schismatical bodies and the Church, implied also complete 
separation in the ecclesiastical sense, i. e. that the former were not 
parts of the Church. St. Augustine, it is true, calls the Donatists 
** brethren ”—“ Fratres nostri estis,” but not in the sense of their 
belonging to the Church, which he guards specially against, but of 
confessing one Christ—‘ unum Christum confitemur, in uno cor- 
pore, sub uno capite esse debemus.” (In B. 32.) Any common 
ground of whatever kind, and to whatever extent, is, of course, so 
far union, and sometimes favours, and has a tendency to promote 
that point of view; and Augustine’s language is evidently affected 


Cnap. XI.] Senses of Regeneration. 165 


3. The term regenerate is used in a secondary sense by 
the Calvinistic School. Generally preferring to understand 
the regeneration co-extensive with baptism as hypothetical, 
the Calvinists of the Reformation still acknowledged a 
universal literal “ sacramental regeneration,’ or regenera- 
tion sacramento tenus, in baptism. 

Under this head, however, we may notice the more subtle 
and higher secondary sense which the modified Calvinism 
of Ward and Davenant devised for the term. ‘These two 
divines diverged from the established language of the 
School, so far as to construct a regeneration which con- 
sisted simply in remission of original sin, wnaccompanied 
by sufficient grace for the future life of the individual. 
The object of which distinction was to give them a ground 
for calling baptism in some sense beneficial to all infants, 
even to the non-elect, in opposition to the ordinary 
Calvinistic view, which limited the benefit to the elect. 

Ward and Davenant maintained this sense of “ regene- 
rate,’ in its application to all infants, as being the 
Augustinian sense of the term in that application. And 
this interpretation of Augustine is favoured by his lan- 
guage so far as this,—that the anti-Pelagian treatises, 
which are the chief repository of Augustinian testimony 
to infant regeneration and furnish the principal supply of 
catenze, are occupied with regeneration exclusively in the 
light of remission of original sin. The object of these 
treatises is to prove the existence of original sin against 


by the consideration of the common ground involved in the law of 
baptism. The primary motive however to this strong defence of 
the validity of schismatical baptism was not that of ecclesiastical 
comprehensiveness, so much as that of the security of baptism ; 
which it was necessary to vindicate by relieving it of impediments, 
and reducing it to as simple a test as possible—the matter and the 
words ; so as not to expose people, when baptism could not be re- 
peated, to doubt and uncertainty as to the validity of their own 
baptism. 


166 Secondary and Incorrect [Parr I. 


the Pelagian who denied it, and for this object the writer 
insists constantly on the Catholic practice of infant 
baptism; the argument being that baptism conveyed 
remission of sin, that therefore infants received remission 
of sin in baptism, that infants, however, had not personal 
sin to be remitted, that therefore the sin which was 
remitted in their case must be original. This being the 
exclusive object then of the anti-Pelagian treatises, the 
argument of these treatises has only to do with regenera- 
tion in the aspect of remission of original sin. Nor is it 
concerned with this grace as connected with power for the 
future, but only as forgiveness of the past ; for though we 
naturally associate the two together, still remission of the 
past does not in the bare idea of it involve power for the 
future, and to be freed from the guilt of original con- 
cupiscence is not the same thing with being enabled to 
conquer the growing strength of it. So that the promi- 
nent sense in which regeneration figures in the anti- 
Pelagian treatises is a partial and incomplete one, 
representing one side only of the gift to the exclusion of 
the other. 

But this whole contrivance of Ward and Davenant was 
in truth but a verbal artifice without solid meaning. These 
divines were rigid Calvinists at the bottom, who could 
not, in consistency with their own system, afford a true 
regeneration to all baptized infants ; the majority of whom 
they regarded as cut off, by an eternal decree antecedent 
to all action of their own, from the possibility of attaining 
salvation. The benefit thus conferred then upon non- 
elect infants was a benefit in name only ; for the remission 
of original sin, if it is taken in its natural connexion as 
accompanied by admission generally to the favour of God 
and His enabling grace, is a benefit undoubtedly ; but 
if it is artificially separated from these, what possible 
advantage can it be to a man to be forgiven his original 


Cuap. XI.] Senses of Regeneration. 167 


sin, if he is certain to be eternally punished for his actual,° 
which he has not the power given him to avoid? If the 
non-elect, as Dr. Ward admits, ‘‘ never come to be justified 
by a true and lively faith, nor ever are by that bond 
mystically united to Christ,”° i.e. if, masmuch as uni- 
formity proves a law, this state is unattainable by them, 
the remission of original sin in such a case becomes a mere 
barren theological technicality. This “‘ temporary ordina- 
tion to life without the benefit of election,’ ' was perfectly 
useless for the purpose of salvation, if election was 
necessary for that purpose, and these divines held firmly 
that it was. 

The baptismal scheme, then, of these two divines, 
though it has been sometimes referred to’ as evidence 
that Calvinism can be held consistently with the true 
regeneration of all infants in baptism, proves no such 
conclusion; because the regeneration which was made 
co-extensive in this scheme with infant baptism, was not 


8 Ward and Davenant had, as Calvinists, to meet the objection 
that, inasmuch as some of the baptized body perished finally, by 
allowing remission of original sin to all the baptized, they allowed 
a grace which was lost ;—a concession which was against the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of the indefectibility of grace. They replied that 
the non-elect always retained the forgiveness of their original sin, 
and were only condemned on account of their actual. ‘“‘ Htsi asse- 
ram parvulos non-electos et finaliter perituros a reatu originalis 
peccati baptismo lberari, atque adeo justificari ; tamen simul assero 
taliter justificatos nunquam excedere ab illa justitia, nec in id quod 
remissum est recedere, nec in originali peccato damnari, sed propter 
postrema crimina morte affci.” Vindicie Gratiz Sacramentalis, 
p. 127. 

9 Parr’s Life of Usher, p. 486. 

1 «Temporanea ordinatio ad vitam absque beneficio electionis.” 
Davenantii Epistola, p. 13. ‘“ Hae sola remissio originalis pec- 
cati non sufficit ut idem sufficienter ordinetur ad vitam pro 
statu adulti.” Ward’s Determinations, p. 195. 

2 Wilberforce’s Doctrine of Holy Baptism, p. 268. Dodgson’s 
Controversy of Faith, p. 83. 


168 Secondary and Incorrect [Parr I. 





a regeneration which gave the power to attain salvation ; 
and therefore it was not a true regeneration. These 
divines admitted this themselves. They confessed that it 
differed in kind from adult regeneration ; * and that it was 
no gift peculiar to the new dispensation, but only the 
same which circumcision had conferred under the old law.* 
They maintained everywhere as an impregnable truth, 
that real regeneration involved in its very nature final 
perseverance and ultimate salvation, whereas this infantine 
regeneration was by the supposition a gift which consisted 
with final reprobation. And, lastly, they called the latter 
expressly “regenerationem Sacramentalem parvalis re- 
generandis idoneam,”° whereas true regeneration they 
defined as “‘conversionem sive novi cordis creationem, 
quee proprie regeneratio dicenda est.” ® 

From the secondary senses of “ regenerate,” which 
profess to be such, we turn now to an incorrect sense of 
the term, which has obtained wide acceptance within our 
own Church, under the profession of being a true and 
adequate sense. 

One true sense of the term “ regenerate” has hitherto 
occupied the ground, descending from the New Testament 
to the Fathers, from the Fathers to the Schoolmen, and 
from the Schoolmen to the Calvinistic divines, viz. that 


3 “Nec que dicitur regeneratio parvuli est ejusdem specier cum 
hac nova creatione, sive spirituali renascentia adultorum.” Vin- 
diciz Grat. Sacr., p. 19. 

4 “Tpse ritus circumcidendi preputium parvulorum in V. T. a 
Deo prescriptus Gen. xvii. 10, non obscure innuit imo plane docet 
ante actum circumcisionis, ubi potest haberi et adhibetur, ipsum 
reatum originalem manere et parvulis imputari; et post circum- 
cisionem auferri et non imputari. Id quod pariter pronunciandum 
de baptismali ablutione; que ibidem denotat ante ablutionem 
reatum originalem manere et imputari parvulo, post ablutionem 
auferri, nec amplius imputari.” Vindicie, p.135. Gataker, p. 26, 
136. 5 Ep. Dav., p. 20. 6 Tbids p. 8." 


Cuar. XI.] Senses of Regeneration. 169 


implying actual goodness. One difficulty has indeed 
accompanied this sense, viz. how to reconcile it with the 
truth of the assertion that all infants are regenerate in 
baptism; but that difficulty has not as yet affected the 
sense of the term. The Fathers combine the sense with 
this baptismal assertion without explanation ; the School- 
men combine the two with a fallacious explanation; the 
Calvinist retains the sense at the cost of this baptismal 
assertion. , 

But now another and a different sense of the term 
appears for the first time in theology. For ordinary 
purposes indeed the Anglican School uses the term re- 
generate in its natural and Scriptural sense, viz. that of 
actual goodness and conversion of heart. This sense is of 
regular and familiar occurrence, used with perfect free- 
dom, and without the least apology, as any reader of 
Hammond, Jeremy Taylor, Bull, South, Beveridge, and 
Bishop Wilson, may observe for himself. These writers 
do not only, as has been asserted, occasionally slide into 
it as a confessed incorrect and informal, or, as it is called, 
tropological sense ; but employ it habitually as its natural, 
legitimate, and correct one. 

But this being the case, how could the term “ regene- 
rate’ be applied to all baptized infants? The Anglican 
divines had more respect for antiquity than the Calvinists, 
and more consideration for facts than the Schoolmen. 
While they maintained, therefore, the assertion of anti- 
quity that all infants were regenerate in baptism, they 
could not but see the difficulty of reconciling such an 
assertion with the plain facts of experience, if the term 
was to continue bearing this sense of actual goodness. 
The Scholastic theory of infused good habits which need 
not produce action, was not likely to satisfy the practical 
judgment and common sense of this School. The Angli- 
can divines then surmounted the difficulty by constructing 


170 Secondary and Incorrect [Part I. 


a new and special sense of the term “regenerate” as used 
in connexion with baptism; employing the term, in this 
connexion, to denote only an implanted faculty for the 
attainment of goodness and holiness,—a capacity to be 
improved, a power to be cultivated, an assisting grace to 
be used. “ The new birth,” says Hammond, “is not the 
actual forsaking of sin, for this is the consequent task of 
him that makes a right use of the grace of baptism. This 
grace of baptism is the strength of Christ, of super- 
natural ability to forsake sin and live godly. We have in 
baptism that strength given us by Christ that will enable 
us to get out of a servile and dangerous state.”’ ‘We 
conceive,” says Thorndike, “the regeneration of infants 
that are baptized to consist in the habitual assistance of 
God’s Spirit ; the effects whereof are to appear in making 
them able to perform that which their Christianity requires 
at their hands, so soon as they shall understand them- 
selves to be obliged by it.” * It would be easy to quote 
much more to the same purpose, but the Anglican sense 
of regeneration in connexion with baptism is too familiar 
and well known to require large citations; and Bishop 
Bethell only sums up the ordinary language of the School, 
when he defines regeneration as the ‘‘ potential principle 
of a new life, mdependently of its moral operation and 
legitimate effects.” ° 

Here then is certainly a new sense of the term “ regene- 
rate,’ which it has never yet expressly borne in the page 
of theology. Following the history of the term from its 
appearance in Scripture to this date, we see only one 
continuous apparent sense of it as implying actual good- 
ness. It was altogether, then, a new definition of it, to 
describe it as “a potential principle” only. It was a new 


7 Practical Catechism, p. 351. 
8 Laws of the Church, book iti. c. viii. § 25. 
° Treatise on Regeneration, p. 120. 


Cuap. XI.] Senses of Regeneration. 171 





arrangement, for which there was no authority hitherto 
in the language of theology, to construct a special sense 
of the term “regenerate,” as connected with baptism, 
opposed to its ordinary sense. The Fathers make no 
distinctions in their application of the term to baptism, as 
if they cancelled any portion of its ordinary sense in this 
connexion ; they institute no special reduced sense in 
this connexion ; no accommodation to suit a special case. 
But the Anglican divines using the term ordinarily in its 
natural sense as implying actual goodness, institute a 
different sense, in which it stands for a power or capacity 
only, in connexion with baptism. 

Though a secondary sense of “regenerate,” then, was 
not unprecedented, the Anglican double sense was an 
innovation in theology, the term never having been used 
in two different true senses before. And we note the 
new definition, to suit theological convenience, as we 
should any new theory or explanation in science or history. 
Endowed with great sagacity, reasoning power, and read- 
ing grasp, the Anglican School has yet not been without 
failings, one of which has. been to invent new meanings 
of words in Scripture, when they were wanted for theo- 
logical convenience. Some important Scriptural terms 
and phrases change their meaning in Anglican use; 
“ Salvation” meaning power to attain salvation; “ death 
to sin,” power to forsake sin; “ putting on Christ,” the 
power of putting on, and “circumcision in the Spirit” 
the power of cutting off; “a new creature,” one endowed 
with the power of becoming a new creature; “ predesti- 
nated to be conformed to Christ’s image,” predestinated 
to the power of being conformed to it; and “ the elect,” 
those who are admitted to Christian privileges. The great 
Schools have, under the pressure of the need of theological 
adjustment, adopted different expedients according to 
their respective characters; and the practical sagacity of 


172 Secondary and Incorrect [Part I. 


the Anglican School preferred the awkward apparatus of a 
double sense of regeneration to a collision with the facts of 
experience, which the compact but bold Scholastic theory 
of baptismally “infused ”’ goodness seriously challenged. 

But while the Anglican divines institute a new sense 
of “ regenerate,” they use it with considerable scruple 
and hesitation as to its being a true sense; and wield the 
theological instrument of their own contriving, with a 
divided and faltering arm. Those whose peculiar task 
leads them to compare these two senses together, and 
distinguish the rank of the two, do not scruple to speak 
of the former of these two as the true sense, and the latter 
as a secondary one. Bishop Nicholson, for example, 
explains the synonym for regenerate or child of God,— 
the term “member of Christ,’ as having two senses, 
“an univocal” one, in which it applies “to true be- 
lievers,” and an “‘ equivocal” one, in which it applies to 
all baptized Christians." The same precedence is given 
to the former sense of the word, in Dr. Mayer’s Catechism 
published under Laud’s Primacy, and a book of someautho- 
rity at that time,—“ In our baptism we are sacramentally 
and instrumentally made the children of God, and _ really 
and truly when we are baptized with the Holy Ghost.” 


1 «Christ is the head of the Church, and all Christians the 
body, of which every one that professeth the Christian religion is 
a part, and so to be esteemed. But these parts are of two sorts, 
first, either equivocal parts, so taken and reputed by us, such as are 
a glass eye or a wooden leg to a man, which are so called, but truly 
are not such; and whosoever profess the supernatural verities 
revealed by Christ, and make use of the holy sacraments, may, in 
this sense, be called the members of Christ, because they are 
reckoned for parts of His visible body. Secondly, of wnivocal parts, 
that in name and nature are true believers. ... They are united to 
Him, live in Him, and are informed by His Spirit. They are 
washed and regenerated by His blood.” Exposition of the Cate- 
chism (Hd. Anglo-Catholic Library), p. 18. 


Cuap. XI.|] Senses of Regeneration. 17 


Nicholl, in his Commentary on the Book of Common 
Prayer, though he protests against the ‘‘ new-fangled ” 
use of the term “regeneration ”’ as change of heart, still 
involuntarily refers to it as the true meaning of the word. 
‘“There have been some very unreasonable exceptions 
made against this expression (in the Baptismal Service 
‘that this child is regenerate ’), as if all persons who were 
baptized were truly regenerate ; ” whereas, he says further 
on, “ by being a child of God is not understood one who 
is a child of God by spiritual regeneration, and actual 
holiness, but one who is a child of God by covenant and 
adoption.”” Bishop Bradford’s Discourse “on Baptismal 
and Spiritual Regeneration,” showing that the one does 
not at allimply the other, concedes, by its very title, the 
point of the true meaning of the term, for spiritual can 
alone be true regeneration. A later School of Anglican 
divinity indeed has exactly reversed this estimate, and 
claimed for the limited and special sense of the term in 
connexion with baptism, the precedence above the other 
higher and fuller sense, as if it was the former that was 
the true original one, and the latter that was the innova- 
tion. The sense of actual conversion of heart is stamped 
as an incorrect and secondary one, into which the word 
has slided by custom in some quarters, and which, though 
occasionally met with in the works of sound divines, has 
to be apologized for. But this is a departure from the 
older Anglican School, which always uses this sense with 
perfect freedom as a true one, though it does employ the 
limited sense in the special case of baptism. 

What are we to say then, in conclusion, to the use of a 
secondary sense of regeneration? The answer 1s, that 
there is no reason against it, provided the sense is under- 
stood. The preceding chapters have only denied the 
regeneration of all infants in the true and Scriptural sense. 
Looking simply, however, to the use of the term, there 


174 Secondary and Incorrect [Parr I. 


can be no doubt that it has from very early times been 
applied to all baptized infants, and that not hypothetically, 
but literally. Nor is there any objection to continuing 
this universal literal application of it, provided we are not 
required to believe that it is used in the Scriptural sense 
when it is so appled. Such language has an authorized 
place in theology, held in such senses as the different 
Schools within the Church can afford, in consistency with 
their respective principles, to give to it; the Anglican 
School involving in this universally conferred gift, a real 
inward power of attaining ultimate holiness and eternal 
life; the Calvinists, who cannot in agreement with their 
characteristic tenet afford so much, involving in it admis- 
sion to all the outward advantages and blessings of the 
new covenant. 

Some cautions, however, should accompany the use of 
a double sense of the term: for it being evident that the 
sense in which the term “regenerate” is applicable to 
individuals only, and that secondary sense in which it is 
applicable to the whole Christian body, being two different 
and distinct senses of the word, the whole result of one 
theological treatment of this question has been to con- 
found and identify them; i.e. to insist on the application 
of the term to the whole baptized body, in that very sense 
in which it is only applicable to individuals. These being 
two senses have been treated as one sense; and a whole 
peculiar doctrine of baptismal grace has been founded on 
this artificial unity. The Scholastic doctrine of infused 
good habits which did not produce action was thus an_ 
attempt to retain the sense of actual goodness for the 
term, and yet to extend it to all baptized infants; and 
the theory of an universal early personal fall has the 
same aim, viz. at erecting in the distance an actual good- 
ness as the condition of all once by baptism, though 
afterwards lost. Both these are attempts to understand 


Cuap. XI.] Senses of Regeneration. 175 





the term in its very highest sense, and to combine with 
this highest sense an indiscriminate application; to use 
the term of the whole body in that very sense in which it 
can only be used of individuals. But if these are, as they 
plainly are, two different senses, with two different 
applications, we should apply the term to the body in 
that sense in which it is applicable to the body, and to 
individuals in that sense in which it is applicable to indi- 
viduals, and not insist on the one application in the other 
sense.” 

Another caution attending a double sense of the term 
“regenerate ’’ is, that before persons dispute about re- 
generation in baptism, they should first ascertain the 
sense in which they respectively use the term. If each 
side attends to its own sense of the word, not observing 
that the other takes it in another, the result is that one 
arguer supposes the other to deny the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism in the same sense in which he affirms 
it; whereas, if they compared their respective meanings, 
the one would find that the other only denies it in a 
sense in which he would deny it also if he took it in that 
sense. 

Attention to this ambiguity will solve with comparative 
ease questions, about which persons often dispute at 
great length. Thus, on the question of visible fruits, as 
the criterion of regeneration, persons may argue for a 
long time on this question if they do not compare at the 


? Dr. Pusey’s Tract on Baptism, while its seriousness gave it 
great practical value, was defective as a doctrinal treatise in this 
respect, that, while the writer earnestly rejects any other sense of 
the word “regenerate” than the very highest, or that implying 
actual goodness, he yet deprecates any less extensive application of 
the term, than that which includes all baptized infants. This 
combination of the highest sense with the universal application is 
nowhere explained in the tract. 


176 Secondary and Incorrect Senses, &e. 


outset their respective meanings of the term; but if they 
do, surely the solution of it is not difficult. Do we mean 
by regeneration actual goodness, then visible fruits are 
the proper and necessary criterion of it; do we mean 
only a faculty, then we could not have a more irrelevant 
test than that of “visible fruits ;”’ for the existence of 
the faculty is perfectly consistent with the uniform neglect 
of it, i. e. with the absence of all “ visible fruits.” 


CHAPTER XII 


THE PATRISTIC ASSERTION OF THE REGENERATION OF ALL 
INFANTS IN BAPTISM 


THE great assertion of baptismal regeneration, which 
runs through antiquity, has at first sight and to a cursory 
reader a complete unity and wholeness. The language is 
bold and decided, and it forms upon a distant and general 
view one undivided mass. But upon a nearer examina- 
tion this complete wholeness gives way; and just as in a 
natural landscape some large object that had for many 
miles appeared a unity, breaks up upon a nearer approach 
into a group, this one mass of Patristic language divides 
upon a closer view into different formations and com- 
ponent structures. 

We observe first one large formation, which may be 
called poetical, rhetorical, or hypothetical. I mean that 
it describes, under the head of regeneration, a state of 
things which, regarded as the condition of the whole 
Christian body, is obviously untrue and inconsistent with 
facts. This whole mass of language describes the re- 
generate state as righteousness, sanctification, trans- 
formation, renovation, purification, salvation, incorruption, 
deification, eternal life, paradise, and heaven; and such 
being the sublime and transcendent nature of the state, 
the whole body of the baptized is spoken of as being in 
it. Such language is important, as showing that re- 
generation in the idea of the Fathers involved actual 
goodness ; but so far as it assumes that all the baptized 

N 


178 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Parr I. 





are in this state, this body of statement can hardly be 
considered other than hypothetical. We cannot indeed 
overlook the conspicuous fact of a whole remarkable 
formation of language, which, commencing in prophecy, 
adopted by the New Testament, and thence borrowed by 
the Fathers, has exhibited a certain great community of 
men, Jewish or Christian, nation or church, in a different 
light from that of matter of fact. The Prophet describes 
the Jewish nation as, with all its wanderings and lapses, 
“the righteous nation ;” and as such entering, after the 
fluctuations of its earthly course, into that final state of 
peace and glory which constitutes the eternal life of the 
Old Testament, and forms the closing picture of prophecy. 
This righteousness and this final reward apply only in 
strict matter of fact to certain individuals of the nation ; 
but the whole nation is by supposition regarded as being 
what only certain individuals of it really are. From the 
~ Old Testament we come to the New, where we find the 
same language continued with an application to the 
existing Christian Church, which is described in some- 
what the same terms in which prophecy describes the 
glorified Jewish nation. From the New Testament we 
come to the Fathers, who succeed by religious inheritance 
to the language of the Apostles, and only expand and 
amplify the style of the Epistles in speaking of the 
Christian body. We cannot ignore this great stream of 
hypothetical statement, which, rising in prophecy, flows 
through the inspired writing of the new dispensation, 
and is thence received into and carried on in the language 
of the Fathers. 

From this hypothetical body of language we come to 
a technical or conventional one, which was noticed in the 
last chapter, in which regeneration is only used as a term 
for visible baptism. 

Putting aside, then, these two formations of language 


Cuap. XII.| of all Infants nm Baptism. 179 


as no basis upon which a doctrine can be founded, we 
come to the doctrinal language of the Fathers ; and under 
this head we have first the general statement that re- 
generation is the grace of baptism; secondly, the state- 
ment that adults are regenerate in baptism upon the 
condition of faith and repentance; and thirdly, the 
statement that all infants are regenerate in baptism. 
Upon which structure of doctrine I will make the follow- 
ing preliminary remark. 

It has been common to identify the whole of the 
Patristic doctrine on the subject of regeneration, with 
the particular statement relating to infant regeneration ; 
and te assert that this Jatter position could not be re- 
jected, but at the cost of overthrowing the whole bap- 
tismal language of antiquity. But this appears to me 
an exaggeration of the rank and situation which this 
particular assertion holds in the general body of the 
language. ‘This is a particular statement, distinct and 
separable from the main body of Patristic language, which 
asserts the grace of the sacrament generally, without 
involving the further point of the reception of that grace 
by the infant as such. ‘This latter is a subordinate state- 
ment,—subordinate to the main doctrine of baptismal 
regeneration, or the general assertion of the grace of the 
sacrament. ‘The great mass of language descriptive of 
the value, loftiness, and majesty of the baptismal gift, 
which supplies the great proof of the Patristic doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration, and furnishes the ample maga- 
zines of quotations on this subject, is language of a 
general character, declaratory of a sacrament, and of a 
grace bestowed in that sacrament, but not specifying 
recipients. Those high encomiums—as we may call them 
—of baptism, consisting of ascending successions of 
great benefits and graces, are all general language. 
That large structure of typical exposition, which sees 

N 2 


180 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 





baptism prefigured and foreshadowed in the Deluge, in 
the passage of the Red Sea, the well of water which was 
discovered to Hagar in the wilderness, the well out of 
which Rebecca drew water, the wells which Isaac dug in 
the valley of Gerar, the water which bare the infant 
Moses in the ark of bulrushes, the water which gushed 
out of the rock of Horeb, the sweetened waters of Marah, 
the water of Jordan in which Naaman washed, is all 
general language, referring to the virtue of baptism as a 
sacrament. Indeed it is not irrelevant to bear in mind 
that a large part of this vast mass of statement, which, 
as I observe, supplies the proof of the Patristic doctrine 
of baptism, was constructed under the special contempla- 
tion of adult baptism,—a side of the operation of the 
sacrament in which the grace of it certainly does not 
appear as at all coincident with the administration of it. 
It is not too much, perhaps, to say that the main body 
of language in exaltation of baptism, which the three 
first centuries produced, was composed with adult bap- 
tism specially in the writers’ minds. This naturally 
would be the case by the force of circumstances, for the 
way in which the Church of that period grew and ex- 
panded was more by adult conversion, than by births 
within her; and even with respect to those born within 
her, infant baptism was by no means universal, even if 
it was dominant. But the allusions show that this ts. 
the case. Undoubtedly the Fathers of this period in 
their baptismal expositions and exhortations make refer- 
ences to infant baptism to prove its legitimacy, and to 
recommend it,—though often with considerable limita- 
tions; but the very manner of reference shows that this 
side of the administration of the sacrament was not upper- 
most or even prominent in their thoughts, while they 
were erecting that imposing fabric of language which so 
elevates the dignity, mystery, and efficacy of that sacra- 


Cuap. XII.] of all Infants in Baptism. 181 


ment. The statement, then, of the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism, has by no means that wide and 
absorbing position in the Patristic structure which some 
would attribute to it, nor would it be correct to say that 
with it the whole baptismal language of antiquity stands 
or falls. It is one particular assertion inserted in a vast 
body of general assertion of the virtue of the sacrament ; 
which latter would remain even if i¢ were removed. The 
language of Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Ter- 
tullian, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, would in 
the main stand. The substance of the Lectures of Cyril 
of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom to Catechumens, would 
not be removed by the withdrawal of an assertion respect- 
ing infants. 

These observations are not without importance, for it 
being admitted that the Fathers make the assertion that 
all infants are regenerate in baptism, it is still not a 
point irrelevant to the present argument to distinguish 
the rank and position which this assertion holds in their 
language: for if the main assertion of the Fathers is a 
general one, we are able to examine the ground of the 
particular and subordinate assertion, with less disturb- 
ance of their language and authority. Is the Patristic 
dictum, then, that all infants are regenerate in baptism, 
an article of the faith? On that question I submit the 
following considerations. 

1. In the first place, then, it must be admitted that 
this statement is an advance upon Scripture; that it 
cannot be proved by Scripture; and that, therefore, 
whatever be the concurrence of antiquity in it, it cannot 
consistently with the rule of the English Church be 
allowed the rank of an article of the faith. So long as 
the Fathers confine themselves to the general assertion 
of the regenerating grace of baptism, so far they only 
state what is implied in Scripture; but when they go 


182 Patristec Assertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 





beyond this general position to erect a fixed class of 
persons who receive this grace without conditions, 1.e. 
to pronounce upon all infants as recipients of such grace, 
they plainly exceed the limits of Scripture, and their 
dictum, therefore, clearly comes within the excluding 
scope of the canon laid down in our sixth article. The 
Vincentian rule indeed, if it be carried to the extreme 
length of saying that every single point, whatever be its 
intrinsic nature, or rank, or subject-matter, which has, 
as a matter of fact, obtained early general consent, is an 
article of the faith, is wholly untenable in reason ; because 
no valid reason can be alleged why some things, not 
necessary to Christian belief, may not still have been 
generally believed in fact. But at any rate, we of the 
English Church do not acknowledge the Vincentian rule 
carried to this extent; nor do we allow the authority of 
the Fathers, in the silence of Scripture, to establish of 
itself an article of the faith. Indeed the fact is certain 
that there are points of belief which do not now obtain 
general consent in the Church, which yet obtained 
general consent in the ancient Church.’ 

2. But in the next place, even taking the ground of 
antiquity alone, the most serious defects attach to the 
general position of this statement, as regards its claim 
to be considered an article of the faith. 

This statement appears in no creed, and has never 
been asserted by any General Council.” But whatever 
may be said of articles of faith existing in the unwritten 
creed of the Church antecedently to any formal declara- 
tion of them, and only indeed needing such formal de- 
claration when they come to be disputed, there can be 
no doubt that when a point is disputed, it can only by 
the law of the Church be enforced as an article of the 


1 Note 24. 2 Note 25. 


ee 


Cuap. XII.| of all Infants tn Baptism. 183 


faith, by the Church’s synodical adoption of it, and in- 
sertion in some Catholic formula; not having obtained 
which, it has not the formal and ultimate position of an 
article of the faith. 

The relation, indeed, in which the creeds stand to 
articles of faith or fundamentals, has not been accurately 
defined by our divines, and perhaps does not admit of 
being so; nor has it been formally settled whether every- 
thing contained in the creeds is an article of faith, or 
whether all the articles of the faith are contained in the 
creeds. The latter point, however, has been much more 
confidently disposed of than the former. “ The ancient 
and primitive Christians,’ says Wall, speaking of the 
article of infant baptism, ‘‘ for certain did not reckon 
this pot among the fundamental ones. For they drew 
up short draughts and summaries of the faith, which we 
call creeds; and into these they put all those articles 
which we call fundamental or absolutely necessary. Now 
though some churches had their creeds a little larger 
than others; and some councils or meetings of Chris- 
tians did overdo in putting in some-opinions, which they 
valued more than need was, into these creeds ; yet there 
never was any creed at all, that had this article in it.’’* 
“ Whether all those declarations,” says Stillingfleet, 
“which were inserted in the enlargements of the Aposto- 
lical Creed by the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, 
and in that creed which goes under the name of Atha- 
nasius, were really judged by the Catholic Church of all 
ages to be necessary to salvation, is not here my purpose 
to inquire; but there seems to be a great deal of reason 
for the negative, that what was not inserted in the 
ancient creeds was not by them judged necessary to be 
believed by all Christians.”* These are rough decisions, 


3 Vol. 1. p. 549. * Vindication, vol. 1. p. 89. 


184 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 


requiring finish and filling up, and should be taken 
perhaps as including under the head of creeds, the ex- 
press determinations of General Councils, even if not in- 
serted in creeds, according to the test of heresy laid 
down in the Act of Supremacy: these statements, how- 
ever, and others of other writers like them, amount to a 
practical judgment on the part of our divines, that the 
Church has by this time declared and put down in 
writing all those points which are articles of the faith; 
and, therefore, that if any particular position is not to 
be found in writing, in some existing document of the 
Catholic Church, such a position may be set down as 
not being an article of the faith. 

3. But waiving the obstacle just raised, which may be 
thought by some of too technical a nature, though when 
really examined it will be found to involve important 
rules of common sense and Church practice, we have to 
meet another and more serious objection to the claim of 
this assertion to be an article of the faith. No secondary or - 
incorrect sense of the term “ regenerate” is allowable in 
an assertion on the subject of regeneration, which is to 
rank as an article of the faith; nor, indeed, is any such 
sense pretended or asked for by those who claim this 
rank for this Patristic assertion; but, on the contrary, 
only the true and Scriptural sense. But if this sense is 
taken, this assertion is then untrue, and contrary to the 
facts of our experience. The term “regenerate ”’ implies 
in its Scriptural sense actual goodness, and it is contrary 
to experience to say that all infants are endowed with this 
goodness in baptism. That they should be virtuous 
agents is indeed impossible, but neither are they all in 
baptism endowed with a seminal character of goodness, 
because, as we have shown in a preceding chapter, if they 
were, such an implanted character would come out in all of 
them with the growth of nature ; whereas we see that this is 


Caap. XII.) of all Infants in Baptism. 185 





not the case. The Patristic assertion then is in this awkward 
predicament, with respect to its claim to be considered 
an article of the faith, viz. that to possess this rank the 
principal term in it must be used in its true sense; while 
at the same time, if this condition is fulfilled, the asser- 
tion itself is altogether untrue. 

So far, then, as this question is concerned it does not 
much signify which of these two alternatives we adopt. 
Do the Fathers in this particular dictum use the term 
“regenerate ” in its true sense, as implying actual good- 
ness? In favour of this it may be said that this is the 
sense in which they do ordinarily use the term; that 
their language, though wanting in precision, is sub- 
stantially to the purport that the regenerate state is a 
state of actual goodness and holiness.’ But if this is the 
sense in which they use the term in this dictum, they are 
thrust upon the Scholastic doctrine of the universal in- 
fusion of a habit of goodness into infants at baptism; a 
-doctrine which, as has been shown,'° is involved in in- 
superable difficulties, and is directly at variance with 
facts. 

Do the Fathers in this dictum use the term in a 
secondary sense? In favour of this it may be said that 
we have no trace of the Scholastic doctrine just men- 
tioned in the Fathers.’ And when we consider the com- 
parative ease with which words in large use slide out of 
one meaning into another, and contract in course of time 

5 See Chapter vi. § Chapter vii. 

7 This doctrine had not gained acceptance even in the days of 
Peter Lombard, who asks, as if it were an absurd supposition, 


—‘“‘ sed quis dixverit eos (infantes) accepisse fidem et charitatem ?”’ 
L. 4, dist. 4. 

“ Ubi tu ex veteribus certo edocebis habitus aut fidei aut spei aut 
charitatis in quibus potissimum sanctificatio consistit, infundi 


parvulis in baptismo?” Ward, Disceptatio inter Gataker et 
Ward, p. 203. 


186 PatristicA ssertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 


senses very different from their original ones, the suppo- 
sition of a secondary sense involves nothing strange or 
improbable. The history of language is full of instances 
of this kind of change in the meaning of words; and 
though it might be objected with some appearance of 
reason that the Fathers do not tell us of any secondary 
sense in which they use the term here, it might be 
replied also, not unreasonably, that it is not necessary for 
the truth of the fact that they themselves should inform 
us of it; that when a difficulty occurs in a book, a letter, 
or any kind of document, which can only be explained 
by supposing that the writer uses a certain word in a 
different sense from its original one, we do not wait for 
the writer to tell us, before we give this explanation, 
but do it upon our own authority, because, as reasonable 
intelligent persons, we are judges of language, of its 
difficulties, and of the mode of explaming them. But 
then, if we adopt this alternative of a secondary sense, 
this statement of the Fathers becomes a totally different 
statement from that which is wanted for a dogmatic pur- 
pose. Ceasing to be the statement that all infants are 
regenerate in baptism in the true sense, it is deprived of 
the necessary condition of an article of the faith, as well 
as of all peculiar theological interest; for those who 
maintain the regeneration of all infants in baptism do not 
profess to be concerned with any other sense of the term 
than the true one. 

4, On either then of the alternatives just mentioned, 
either that the term regenerate is used or is not used in 
its true sense in this Patristic statement, the claim of 
this statement to be an article of the faith is alike dis- 
posed of in the negative. But now another objection to 
this claim arises, in consequence of this very alternative 
of meaning under which we have been considering this 
statement. For why were we obliged to make use of an 


Cuav. XII.] of all Infants in Baptism. 187 


alternative? Simply because the Fathers do not tell us 
distinctly in what sense they do use the term “ rege- 
nerate” in this statement. Did they expressly assert, 
with the Schoolmen, that an actual habit of goodness is 
implanted in all infants in baptism; or did they expressly 
assert, with the Anglican divines, that only a faculty is 
implanted ; in either case we should know what they 
meant, and should treat their assertion accordingly in 
one or the other of the two ways just mentioned. But 
the truth is, that the Fathers do not tell us in what 
sense they do use this term in this statement. It is 
evident that an explanation is wanted here ; for how can it 
be said, consistently with plain facts, that all infants are 
made good in baptism? The Fathers do not give this 
explanation, and therefore leave us in doubt what they 
mean by this statement. 

Two great schools of divines accordingly, each pro- 
fessing the character of zealous adherents and faithful 
exponents of the Fathers, have given totally different 
interpretations of this statement. The Schoolmen and 
the Anglican divines both alike base their baptismal doc- 
trine upon the Fathers; both alike base their doctrine of 
infant regeneration upon this particular assertion of the 
Fathers; but the Schoolmen confidently interpret this 
assertion of the Fathers, viz. that all baptized infants are 
regenerate, as meaning that all infants have actual good- 
ness implanted in them in baptism; the Anglican divines 
as confidently deny this interpretation of it, and maintain 
that it does not mean anything of the kind.® The 
Schoolmen expound the baptismal regeneration of the 
Fathers, as meaning the infusion of the very habit of 
goodness, the very virtues of faith, hope, and charity 
themselves into every infant at baptism. The Anglicans 


§ Chapters vil. xi. 


188 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 


expound it as only the endowment of the infant with a 
new capacity for goodness, or a special assisting grace. 
Bishop Bethell rejects the Scholastic interpretation as 
unsound, fantastic, untenable, and contrary to plain ex- 
perience. He condemns as irrational the idea of “ habits 
of faith and holiness beimmg implanted in the soul by 
literal creation ;”*® he rejects the doctrine, that “ man 
when he is baptized is endowed with justifying grace, 
containing in it faith, hope, charity, and all the Christian 
virtues,” as an unauthorized ambitious conceit ; and con- 
trasts with it, as representing the true meaning of the 
Fathers, the doctrine of the Anglican School, that “the 
grace conferred by baptism is a potential principle or 
latent power, which must be developed by a right use of 
the means of grace and by moral and religious disci- 
pline.”! “ We who maintain,” he says, “‘ that regenera- 
tion is the inward and spiritual grace of baptism, do not 
identify it with conversion, the renewal of the inward 
frame, an entire change of mind, ora radical change in all 
the parts and faculties of the soul ;’? but only “ consider 
it as a change of state and relative condition, carrying 
with it new privileges, capacities of action, and expecta- 
tions.” * That is to say, he rests his defence and justifi- 
cation of the Patristic assertion of the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism, upon the very ground that it does not 
mean that which whole centuries of Schoolmen said it 
did mean. Such are the two expositions given of the 
same statement of antiquity by two great schools of 
divines, alike professing to adopt and defend this state- 
ment.* 


es Ge, L Pte: 2 Pref. p. 39. 3 Pp. 222, 223. 

4 We have indeed witnessed comparatively lately within our own 
Church the conflict of these two interpretations of this statement 
of the Fathers. Dr. Pusey, in his Tract on Baptism, charged the 
Anglican School, or a portion of it, with holding “a mere outward 


Cuap. XII.] of all Infants cn Baptism. 189 


And if those disagree about the meaning of this state- 
ment, who agree in accepting the statement itself, cer- 
tainly those do not less differ as to the meaning, who 
separate as to the statement. We see one large school 
among ourselves disagreeing with the position that all 
infants are regenerate in baptism because they understand 
regeneration as implying actuai goodness, and so under- 
standing it, cannot acquiesce in this universal bestowal 
‘of it, in the face of plain facts. We see another large 
school agreeing with this statement because they dis- 
own this meaning which the other school attributes, de- 
claring that the statement means something altogether 
different. 

What is the natural conclusion, then, which is to be 
drawn from the ambiguity of the Patristic assertion of the 
regeneration of all infants in baptism, so forcibly and 
plainly witnessed to by the opposite meanings which 
schools even agreeing in the adoption of the statement 
itself attach to it? What but that a statement, of which 


change of state or circumstances, or relation,” as what constituted 
baptismal regeneration. Bp. Bethell, on the other hand, in defend- 
ing the Anglican School, fastened upon Dr. Pusey a near approxi- 
mation to the Scholastic definition of that gift. The descriptions 
which these two divines give of the nature of baptismal regenera- 
tion do indeed radically differ; and founded alike upon this asser- 
tion of the Fathers, these two treatises give totally different inter- 
pretations of it. With Dr. Pusey, regeneration distinctly ‘‘ com- 
prehends change of heart and affections,’ with Bp. Bethell it as 
distinctly does not. According to Dr. Pusey, we are in baptism 
“both accounted and made righteous ;’”’ according to Bp. Bethell, 
we are only endowed with “a potential principle,” or the capacity 
of becoming righteous. We have then in these two treatises, which 
are the principal recent expositions of the baptismal language of 
the Fathers, and which aim alike at a faithful explanation of this 
particular statement of the Fathers, two interpretations of it so 
distinct, that the same person might accept it in one of these 
meanings and reject it in the other. . 


190 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Part I. 





the meaning is not clear, is not in a fit state for dogmatic 
use? Do the Fathers mean by regeneration in this state- 
ment a gift which does imply actual goodness, or a gift 
which does not imply it? ‘These are two fundamentally 
different meanings; they are contradictory meanings. 
If we do not know then whether this Patristic state- 
ment is to be understood in the one or the other, it 
is a statement to which we cannot be required to 
subscribe. 

For if the Church wants to impose a truth she must 
first, both according to the law of reason and her own 
law, express the truth which she wants toimpose. In the 
first place, this has been invariably the practice of the 
Church. She has never imposed particular articles of be- 
lief by means of dubious statements, which only included 
those articles within a wider area of meaning, and did not 
singly express them. Defective expression has, on the 
contrary, been amended, the indistinctness cleared up, 
and the particular truth been specified before it has been 
enforced. Thus when the term ‘God,’ which had 
undoubtedly been used in Scripture in a sense short of 
absolute Deity, was found insufficient to express the 
Divinity of our Lord, she added the term “ consub- 
stantial ”’ to it; and when the Catholic statement of the 
Incarnation was found not sufficient to express our Lord’s 
Unity of Person, she made the latter specific addition. 
Her practice has thus never been to impose unexpressed 
meanings, but always to express particularly the meaning 
which was intended, before she imposed it. She did this 
undoubtedly in the cases mentioned, not so much out of 
justice to subscribers as to protect herself; but without 
going into her reasons,—though we may remark, by the 
way, that the former is a duty as incumbent upon her as 
the latter,—it is sufficient to observe the fact of her uni- 
form practice. 


Crap. XII.| of all Infants in Baptism. 191 


We receive indeed and subscribe to a whole class of doc- 
trinal statements, of which the meaning is in this sense 
unknown, that we have no clear and distinct idea of the 
truths themselves which those statements declare. The 
doctrinal statements which declare the Trinity, the Incar- 
nation, the Atonement, have no distinct meaning in the 
sense of a meaning whichis clearly comprehensible by us, 
and for this reason, that the nature of the truths which 
they express is such that no distinct idea can be formed 
of them, such as can be subjected to our intellectual grasp. 
But this is altogether a different case from the one before 
us. Those statements are not ambiguous, though their 
meaning is in this sense indistinct ; because this indis- 
tinctness does not arise from any defect of expression, 
but from the mysterious nature of the truths expressed ; 
which truths being incomprehensible, the statements are 
still decisive, and not open to any double interpretation. 
But the statement with which we are here concerned, is 
an ambiguous statement admitting of two totally different 
intelligible and distinct meanings, according to the inter- 
pretation which is put upon it. 

Formularies of faith, again, sometimes contain state- 
ments which are designedly made ambiguous, in order to 
include different senses of and modes of entertaining par- 
ticular truths, so as to admit of the subscription of dif- 
ferent schools. But statements which are designedly 
ambiguous, 1.e. constructed so as to cover a certain 
area of meaning, not co-extensive with one sense of a 
truth, but including several, are ambiguous relatively to 
one or other of the particular senses they cover, but in 
themselves they are not at all ambiguous; for the inclu- 
sive area is as distinct and apparent as the specific one, the 
larger area is as express as the less, and speaks for itself 
to the subscriber. But statements which are ambiguous 
not from design but from the loose and undefined nature 


192 Patristic Assertion of the Regeneration | Parr I. 


of the terms employed in them, are ambiguous in them- 
selves and ambiguous to subscribers. 

The uniform practice of the Church, then, is against the 
imposition of statements as articles of faith, of which the 
meaning is ambiguous and undecided. But we need 
hardly appeal to precedent in such a case as this. The 
great court of the Church Catholic is originally bound by 
those plain elementary rules and principles to which all 
tribunals are tied, that impose confessions, oaths, or de- 
clarations upon men ; and especially by the rule which re- 
quires that in imposing any article of practice or belief, we 
should specify what the article which we impose is. No 
considerations can supersede the imperative law of jus- 
tice and reason, that when we are required to subscribe a 
proposition, we should know what it is which we are 
subscribing to. This is one of those first principles, 
which are supposed in all compacts and agreements, bonds 
and engagements, civil and religious. 

When the rank of an article of the faith, then, is 
claimed for this statement, I remark, as I have done 
already, first, that this is a special and subordinate state- 
ment of the Fathers, distinct from their principal 
baptismal statement, which is a general one; secondly, 
that this statement cannot be proved by Scripture, a 
consideration which singly disposes of this claim ; thirdly, 
that it appears in no creed or declaration of any General 
Council; fourthly, that it is untrue, and opposed to plain 
and certain facts, if the principal term in it is understood 
in its true sense, in which sense it must be understood in 
a statement pretending to be an article of the faith; but 
fifthly and lastly, I remark that this statement is am- 
biguous, and that we do not know what it means, and 
what it intends to assert. Were there no other weak 
point in its case, against the universality of this Patristic 
statement we must set off its ambiguity, as a fundamental 


Cuap. XII.) of all [Infants in Baptism. 193 


constitutional defect in its position. We are unable to 
ascertain what we should be subscribing to in subscribing 
to this statement. We cannot obtain a satisfactory 
answer to this first question, which is in the nature of the 
case preliminary to all assent. On consulting authorities, 
we find contradictory interpretations. The ambiguity of 
this statement is indeed a thing generally observed, but 
the conclusion which follows unavoidably from it, should 
be observed also, that it is unfitted by such ambiguity 
for dogmatic use. Because to an article of the faith, in 
the legal eye of the Church, adequate expression is as 
necessary as universality ; it is as essential that it should 
be known in what there is general concurrence, as that 
there should be general concurrence. 


CHAPTER XIII 
AUGUSTINIANISM 


Tue difficulties relating to the doctrine of the regeneration 
of all infants in baptism, arise from two different sources. 
One is the meaning of the term “regenerate,” the dif_i- 
culties arising from which have been discussed in the 
preceding chapters. The other is the doctrine of pre- 
destination. These two sources of difficulty on this 
subject are distinct and independent of each other. Did 
no doctrine of predestination exist, the sense of the term 
“regenerate”? would still create those difficulties which 
have been mentioned. But in addition to the sense of 
the term, another remarkable phenomenon must now be 
taken into account, and that is the toleration by antiquity 
of the doctrine just mentioned. 

The doctrine of predestination no more conflicts with 
the doctrine of baptismal grace generally stated, than it 
does with the grace of the other sacrament; for the 
certainty of the end is not incompatible with the necessity 
of the means. And for this reason it does not disagree 
with the Scriptural doctrine of baptismal regeneration ; 
for Scripture only refers generally to the grace of the 
sacrament, and lays down no fixed class of recipients. 
But when the doctrine of. baptismal regeneration goes 
beyond Scripture, and pronounces all baptized infants to 
be recipients of this grace, the doctrine of predestination 
comes into collision with it, as we shall see by simply 
ascertaining what these two doctrines respectively mean. 


Augustinianism. 195 


For in confronting one of these doctrines with the 
other in order to ascertain whether they are compatible 
with each other or not, the first thing we have to do is 
to place the real meanings of the two properly before us. 
Any two sets of words as such may be held together, for 
verbal statements apart from their meanings are in no 
way opposed to each other, but doctrines cannot be 
embraced together, which are contradictory in meaning. 

First, then, what do we mean by regeneration? No- 
body pretends to say that the whole of that grace which 
is necessary for a man through life, is received in the 
single moment of baptism; by regeneration, however, 
we certainly mean admission to a state of grace enabling 
_ the individual to attain salvation. Some give the term a 
much higher meaning, including in the signification of 
it not only the power to attain holiness and salvation, but 
actual holiness itself; but all agree that regeneration in 
its true sense implies at the least that power. This is 
expressed in the common description of baptism as a 
covenant, in which God gives on His part all the grace 
that is necessary for the attainment of eternal life, 
leaving to the individual on his part the responsibility of 
availing himself of the power. ‘ Baptism,” says Hooker, 
“‘impheth a covenant or league between God and man, 
wherein as God doth bestow presently remission of sins, 
binding also Himself to add in process of time what grace 
soever shall be further necessary for the attainment of 
everlasting life; so every baptized soul,”? &c. ‘The 
regeneration of infants,’ says Thorndike, ‘ consists in 
the habitual assistance of God’s Spirit, the effects whereof 
are to appear in making them able to perform that which 
their Christianity requires at their hands.”? ‘To all 
persons,” says Barrow, ‘‘ by the holy mystery of baptism 


1 Kecl. Pol. v. lxiv. 4. 2 Laws of Church, b. iii. c. viii. § 25. 
0 2 


196 Augustinianisnt. (Panna 


duly initiated into Christianity, the grace of the Holy 
Spirit is communicated, enabling them to perform the 
conditions of virtue and piety which they undertake, and 
continually watching over them for the accomplishment 
of these purposes. ... A competency of grace and 
spiritual assistance is really imparted to every man, 
qualifying him to do what God requires.”* Bishop 
Bethell defines regeneration as “a change of state and 
relative condition, accompanied with an earnest or first 
principle of new life, and a promise of such spiritual 
power as may enable the recipient to continue in this state 
of salvation, and to carry on that moral and practical 
change which this mystical change implies and requires.”’ 
But I need not quote authorities on a point universally 
agreed on, and always assumed rather than expressed in 
all allusions to regeneration. 

This being one of the two doctrines, then, viz. that all 
infants are at baptism admitted into a state or condition 
of ability to attain salvation, and have the pledge given 
them that they will, as they grow up and throughout life, 
receive grace sufficient for this purpose,—this being one 
of the two doctrines, let us now turn our attention to 
the other, with which it is to be confronted. 

The Augustinian doctrine of Predestination divides 
the world into two portions, one of which is from all 
eternity, and antecedently to all action of the individuals — 
themselves, predestinated to eternal life; the other 
without exception is left to eternal damnation. Both of 
these are originally in the same state, they are in massa 
perditionis, as the Augustinian phrase is, i massa peccate ; 
that is to say, they are beth by birth in a condition ct 
moral impotence, and utterly unable to lead that course 
of life which will secure their salvation; but one is 


3 Sermon 72. 


Cap. XII.] <Augustinianism. 197 


antecedently to all life and conduct rescued out of this 
state, the other is antecedently to all life and conduct left 
init. The individuals who compose the one division are 
endowed with irresistible grace, and final perseverance, 
which not only enable but cawse them to act aright, and 
to act aright up to the end of life; from the other these 
gifts which are absolutely necessary for salvation are 
withheld. This section, therefore, labours under a total 
inability from the very moment of birth to attain salvation. 
The uniformity of the result of failure in an arbitrarily 
constituted class proves of itself unequivocally the absence 
of power to succeed. But besides this, an issue which is 
certain antecedently to all the acts and behaviour of a 
man implies in its very idea the impossibility of being 
avoided by him. It is true that some certainty may be 
a certainty to the Divine Mind, and yet a contingency in 
itself; for if the Divine Mind foresees an event as con- 
tin gent, and simply following upon certain conduct which 
might have been avoided, such an event is not the less 
contingent in itself because it is certain from all eternity 
to God. But if the certainty of an event exists prior to 
all conduct of the individual, the event is not only certain 
to God, but unavoidable by man; because existing as it 
does prior to all human conduct, it plainly is not caused 
by it. 

One whole section of mankind, therefore, according to 
the Augustinian scheme, labours from the very moment 
of birth under a total inability to attain salvation. For 
those who compose this section are without such grace as 
is absolutely necessary for salvation; they are without 
this grace because they are not included within the decree 
of predestination; and the very corner-stone of the 
Augustinian doctrine is, that inclusion or non-inclusion 
within the decree of predestination is anterior to all acts 
of the individual. The inability, therefore, of those who 


198 Augustinianism. [Paneer 


compose this section of mankind to attain salvation, is 
like any other case of natural deprivation, in which persons 
are, to begin with, without certain faculties or resources 
which are necessary to gain particular objects. 

The question then is, whether those who labour under 
an absolute and perpetual inability to attain salvation, 
can at the same time possess the power from the moment 
of their baptism to attain salvation? It must be seen 
that this is a contradiction in terms, and therefore that 
the Augustinian scheme is inconsistent with the regene- 
ration of all infants in baptism, if regeneration includes 
what it has been defined as at the very least including. 
Were the area of predestination coincident indeed with 
that of baptism, the two schemes would be consistent ; 
but, inasmuch as the two areas intersect each other, the 
two schemes can only be made consistent by supposing 
that the same person can antecedently to all action of his 
own be excluded from eternal life, and at the same time 
be endowed with grace enabling him to atta it; that 
the same person can want a grace which is necessary for 
salvation, and at the same time have grace sufficient for 
salvation ; that the same person can be left from birth in 
the old Adam, in massa perditionis, and im massa peccata, 
i.e. in his old corrupt nature, and at the same time 
endowed with the new nature. 

If regeneration, therefore, implies according to Hooker © 
the Divine pledge “to add in process of time what grace 
soever shall be necessary for the attainment of everlasting 
life,’ according to Thorndike, ‘‘ the habitual assistance of 
God’s Spirit making us able to perform all that Chris- 
tianity requires at our hands,” according to Barrow, “a 
competency of grace and spiritual assistance qualifying 
every man to do what God requires,” then certainly all 
infants are not, in the Augustinian scheme, regenerate in 
baptism. Because in this scheme al/ infants certainly are 


Cuap, XIII. | Augustinianism. 199 





not admitted at baptism into a state to which this pledge 
and this promise attaches, and in which, as they grow 
up, they have this competent and sufficient Divine grace. 

It must indeed be seen that these two schemes of saving 
grace are based upon directly contradictory assumptions, 
and, therefore, do not admit of being reconciled. The 
scheme of a general baptismal grace assumes what is 
commonly called the principle of free will ;* because such 
a generally bestowed grace, not being as the event shows 
irresistible, depends for its effect upon the use which is 
made of it by the original and independent will of the 
recipient. On the other hand, the Augustinian scheme 
of irresistible grace assumes the will of man to be of such 
a nature, as only to act upon being controlled, and made 
to act by another power; that is to say, this scheme is 
based on a denial of the principle of free will. These 
are two totally contradictory assumptions then,.and the 
schemes of grace which are built upon them are, in 
accordance with the principles which they respectively 
assume, in total contradiction to each other. Upon the 
principle of free will a general bestowal of sufficient 
means for salvation is consistent with only a partial 
success in the result; and, therefore, this principle admits 
of a general bestowal of saving grace upon the baptized 
in consistency with facts. But upon the principle of the 
servitude of the will, the grace which leads. to salvation 
being obliged to be irresistible, that grace must involve 
universally that happy result in fact wherever bestowec. 


«The doctrine of the baptismal regeneration of all infants | 
belongs to the Catholic system, which supposes a free, full, and 
sufficient grace to be offered unto all men : its rejection originated 
in that section of the Church which supposed a portion of mankind 
elected to life, the rest left to the damnation which their inherited 
corruption deserved.” Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism. 1st 
Ed. p. 143. 


200 Augustinianism. [Part I. 


And therefore this principle does not admit of an universal, 
but only of a partial bestowal of saving grace among the 
baptized in consistency with facts. 

In the doctrine of the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism and in Augustinianism we have, in short, two 
fundamentally opposite schemes of saving grace; one of 
which annexes it to the body, the other to individuals ; 
the one to the visible system, the other to the operation of 
a secret decree. One institutes a state of grace sufficient 
for salvation, into which all are alike admitted in and by 
baptism: the other institutes a grace necessary for salva- 
tion, which is extra-baptismal, and for which baptism is 
no security or guarantee.® Any reconciliation of two 
such radically opposite systems must be illusory; but the 
name of St. Augustine being so prominent in antiquity, 
and his authority having been so much appealed to on 
the particular subject of baptism, this reconciliation has 
been attempted by means of some nice distinctions, which 
I proceed to notice because I might be charged with 
neglect if I passed them over, and because they stand in 
the way of and are urged to intercept the plain and 
straightforward view of the case which has been just 
given. 

1. It is observed then that predestination is a deep 
mystery, and that in mysteries we may believe in contra- 
dictories ; that therefore, on the same principle on which 
we can believe both in predestination and free will, we 
can hold both Augustinianism and also the admission of 
all infants in baptism to a state of sufficient grace. But 
the answer to this plea is obvious,—that though we can 
hold indefinite mysteries, and professedly unexpressed 
truths which take opposite directions, we cannot hold 


> For the proof of the above summary of Augustinianism, see 
“Treatise on Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination,’ Chapters 
V. Vi. Vl. Vill. 


Cuap. XIII.] <Augustinianism. 201 





together definite and expressed contradictories. We can 
believe in a Trinity in Unity, but not in Trinitarianism 
and Unitarianism together ; in an undefined predestination 
and free will, but not in Calvinism and Arminianism 
together; in a self-contradictory infinity, but not that two 
and two make six. We cannot hold that some of the 
baptized are without a grace which is necessary, and, at 
the same time, that all the baptized have grace which is 
sufficient ; which is the Augustinian scheme on the one 
hand, and the doctrine of the regeneration of all infants 
in baptism on the other. 

2. The doctrine of Irresistible Grace is sometimes 
represented as quite consistent with the truth that all 
have sufficient grace; the explanation being that the 
former is the privilege of a few, the latter or lower gift 
the common property of all. But those who offer such a 
reconciling explanation as this miss the very pomt of the 
Augustinian doctrine, which is, that grace is not sufficient 
unless it is irresistible. For the wants of man after the 
fall are expressly defined in this doctrine as such, that 
they require irresistible grace as their necessary supple- 
ment; in the absence of which the supply of grace is not 
adequate for the purpose wanted. Irresistible grace 
then, in the Augustinian scheme, is not the surplus of 
the individual, but the absolute want of the state of man: 
it does not figure as a fortunate superfluity in the 
absence of which there may still be sufficiency, but as a 
necessary of which the absence is positive and fatal 
incompetency. 

3. The most common explanation given to reconcile 
Augustinianism with the doctrine of the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism, is that that scheme allows all the bap- 
tized all grace but that of final perseverance.’ But if this 


6 Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, p. 167. 
7 Bethell, p. 144. 


202 Augustinianism. [Parr I. 


is true of Augustinianism, it is only half the truth, and— 
what is specially to be observed—just that half which is 
not to the purpose. For those who remind us _ that 
Augustine allows all the baptized all grace but that of 
final perseverance, omit to add that all grace short of the 
grace of final perseverance is absolutely useless, nugatory, 
and insufficient for the purpose of salvation. They forget 
that this grace, being a grace simply and an arbitrarily 
conferred grace in Augustinianism, is not, as its very name 
shows, a superfluity which a Christian can do without, but 
a necessary without which he is certain to be damned. 
They forget that the absence of the grace of perseverance 
is also, in that system, the absence of the power to per- 
severe; and that to those to whom perseverance is not 
given in fact, it is not an accessible or an attainable 
state. 

Final perseverance is upon any theological system neces- 
sary for salvation, for everybody admits that those only 
who persevere to the end can be saved, and that those 
who ultimately fall away lose all the benefit of their pre- 
vious goodness. But all Christians have the power of 
attaining final perseverance according to the doctrine of 
free will; according to the Augustinian doctrine they 
have not all the power, because there it figures not only 
as a state of man, but as a free gift of God, conferred 
upon some and not upon others according to the secret 
eternal decree of predestination which has been men- 
tioned. Final perseverance is therefore in this system 
both a necessary state—which all allow it to be—and also 
an arbitrarily granted state, not attainable as a state by 
any except those to whom it is positively given as a 
grace. 

4. It is observed that Augustine allows even the non- 
elect temporary grace. But temporary grace, which is 
only temporary because the individual by his own mis- 


Cuap. XIII.) Augustincanism. 203 
Signe eta MAA A =: 


conduct provokes God to withdraw it, 1s one thing ; tem- 
porary grace, which is temporary because it was not 
designed in the Divine plan to be anything more, is 
another thing. Grace, intended to be withdrawn, in 
accordance with an arbitrary decree, before it becomes 
serviceable to the individual’s eternal interests, is not 
sufficient grace, or therefore regenerating grace. Au- 
custine does not indeed, as is often remarked, hold the 
doctrine of the indefectibility of grace; but defectible 
grace, which owes its failure to the Divine purpose and 
not to the human will, is not sufficient grace. 

Does the Augustinian system, however, admit of the 
bestowal of even temporary grace upon the whole body of 
the baptized? It does not, if it adheres to facts. For 
the grace of the new dispensation 1s fundamentally defined 
by Augustine as necessarily effecting that goodness and 
holiness of life to produce which it is given. But can it 
be said of all the individuals of the baptized body that 
they exhibit as they grow up even a temporary character 
of holiness and goodness ? 

5. The analogy of natural birth is sometimes resorted 
to as a mode of reconciling these two conflicting schemes ; 
and it is asked whether the spiritual life may not be, as 
the natural sometimes is, truly conferred, though the 
same Power that gave it intends it to be immediately 
taken away. But this is arguing from a metaphor, and 
metaphor should not be made the basis of reasoning. 
Natural birth is a fact complete in itself, which therefore 
no subsequent death, however immediate, can undo; but 
the birth spiritual has reference to an ulterior object, viz. 
eternal life, which it essentially gives the ability to attain. 
If it does not give this ability, then, the absence of what 
is essential to it undoes it at the very outset, and prevents 
it from being a true spiritual birth. 

6. Attempts are made to distinguish between Calvin’s 


204 A ugustinianism. [Parr I. 


and Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, but both 
assert the division of the baptized body into elect and 
non-elect ; the first of whom are ordained to, and the 
second. excluded from eternal life, antecedently to all 
difference of life and conduct ; this assertion is Calvinism, 
whether made by Calvin or Augustine ;* and Calvinism, 
by whomever held, is in the same logical contradiction to 
the universal regeneration of infants in baptism. 

The distinctions* then which are drawn in order to 
prove, in opposition to the natural view of the case, that 
the Augustinian doctrine of predestination is consistent 
with the doctrine of the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism, are shown to be fallacious ; and it only remains 
that the essential contradiction between these two 
schemes of grace should be confessed and admitted. 

Such, however, being the doctrine of predestination, 
which we find maintained by St. Augustine, we are re- 
minded that, when this doctrine has been duly recognized, 
there still remains another side of Augustine’s language ; 
viz. a whole mass of statement directly asserting the re- 
generation of all infants in baptism.’ This fact then, if 


8 “There may be some trifling deviations from his general views, 
and in some authors an attempt to make additions to their propor- 
tions, but we have every reason to believe in the truth of the asser- 
tion that between the Augustinian and Thomist doctrines of pre- 
destination and that of Calvin there is no substantial difference, 
and that those who suppose that St. Augustine differs from Calvin 
in his doctrine of predestination do not really know the doctrine 
which St. Augustine held on the subject, and suppose it to be 
different from what it was.” LEcclesiastic, No. 33, p. 395. 

“To draw any essential distinction between Calvinism and 
Austinism would argue small acquaintance with the writings of 
either divine.” Faber’s Doctrine of Election, p. 75. 

® Some others are noticed in Note 26. 

1 It is a mistake to suppose that this position is contained in 
St. Augustine’s distinction between baptized and unbaptized 
infants dying in infancy; in which he is speaking only of some 


Cuap. XIII. | Augustinianism. 205 


true, is no refutation, because it does not blot out the 
other fact. ‘The doctrine spoken of remains, its toleration 
by antiquity remains, and its inconsistency with the other 
position remains. When a doctrine is inculcated in the 
boldest, clearest, and most systematic way by an author, 
when it constitutes the most conspicuous phenomenon of 
his teaching, and when it is treated of so copiously that 
whole books are devoted to its exposition, it cannot be 
held that this doctrine is not taught by him, because the 
writer elsewhere says things apparently or really conflict- 
ing with it. Nor can it be held that this doctrine does 
not mean what it plainly does mean, because there is 
other language which is apparently of a contrary mean- 
ing. Nor can it be held that this doctrine is not in plain 
conflict and contradiction with a certain other position, 
because the same writer maintains that other position 
elsewhere in words. A writer may go on combining his 
own peculiar system with certain established language, 
but the circumstance of his combining them does not 
make them consistent. For, a great theory once laid 
down either in philosophy or theology, the author can no 
more dictate the consequences of it than other persons 
can; nor has he any more jurisdiction over his own 
system than any one of his readers. 

As a question, however, relating to the language of 
this great Father, this alleged set-off in his writings to 
the doctrine of predestination deserves some notice, and 
is not without some interest. 

1. Different explanations then have been offered by 
divines of the baptismal language of St. Augustine, in 
order to reconcile it with the conflicting doctrine of pre- 
destination, and save his theological consistency ; of 
which the first that I will mention, Bishop Burnet’s, is not 


infants, not of all, and of those who are in his system elect infants, 
an early death after baptism being a sign of election. 


206 Augustinianism. (Parr I. 





so much an explanation as a simple admission of the diff- 
culty. That writer interprets Augustine’s assertion of 
the regeneration of all infants in baptism as to be under- 
stood in some way consistently with the other doctrine :— 
“ He thought that regenerate persons, not being pre- 
destinated, were certainly to fall from that state and from 
the grace of regeneration.” * The assertion in question 
is thus explained by a limitation and qualification of the 
term regenerate, so as to accommodate it to the other 
great characteristic doctrine,—a limitation and qualifi- 
cation, however, which issues, as it must do, in a totally 
inadequate and suicidal sense of that term. For a regene- 
ration, which is “ certain to be fallen away from,” is in 
the nature of the case not a true regeneration, as involving 
the want of power to persevere in that state to the end ; 
i.e. a want of ability to attain salvation. 

2. The Augustinian sense of the term, in this general 
application of it, has been explained by one writer of 
great authority on the baptismal question, as conven- 
tional and secondary. Wall sees that some explanation 
is wanted of the baptismal assertion as made by a rigid 
predestinarian, and gives the following :—~ And whereas,” 
he says, ‘some people have expressed a wonder at St. 
Austin, that he should hold that all the baptized are re- 
generate ; no man living can read him without perceiving 
that he uses the word regenerate as another word for 
baptized; and that this with him would have been an 
identical proposition, as if one would say now-a-days, ‘all 
that are baptized are christened.’”* The term “ rege- 
nerate ” did undoubtedly contract in antiquity a secon- 
dary sense, in which it stood for the simple fact of 
baptism; and Augustine, as was observed in a former 
chapter,* employs, though not the very term itself, cognate 


2 On Article XVII. 3 History of Infant Baptism, v. 11. p. 187. 
* Chapter xi. 


Cuap. XIII.] <Augustinianism. 207 


terms, in an expressly secondary sense, to denote specially 
a valid baptism : ‘‘EKcclesia omnes per baptismum parit.”’— 
“ Ecclesia generat filios, sive apud se, sive extra se.” The 
birth or generation here mentioned is a wholly different 
thing from regeneration, being that effect of baptism 
which is not grace, but what was called in later theology 
the baptismal character °—an effect received in common 
by good and bad recipients, members of the Church and 
schismatics. It is, however, as we see, called by Augus- 
tine a birth,—“ Ecclesia generat,” “ Kcclesia parit ;””? and 
therefore Wall’s explanation is not without language 
in antiquity, and special language in Augustine, favour- 
ing it. 

3. Another explanation of the baptismal assertion as 
made by Augustine, is that given by Ward and Davenant. 
These divines, as was explained in a preceding chapter,° 
retaining the substance of Elizabethan Calvinism, but 
wishing to combine with it the regeneration of all infants 
in baptism, constructed a particular sense of “ regenerate,” 
to meet this double aim, and allowed even to the non- 
elect a regeneration which consisted in the remission of 
original sin only, specially excluding sufficient grace for 
the future, or power to attain salvation; for which end 
the arbitrary gift of perseverance, admitted to be with- 
held from them, was necessary. In this curtailed and 
artificial sense, then, accommodated to a particular system, 
they applied themselves the term “ regenerate” to all 
baptized infants, and maintained it so to be applied by 
Augustine. 

This interpretation, then, is so far favoured by the lan- 
guage of Augustine, that, as has been already remarked, 
the argument of the anti-Pelagian treatises, which supply 
the principal evidence of Augustine’s doctrine of baptism, 


5 Chapter xi. ¢ PL1G: 


208 Augustinianism. [Part I. 


is only concerned with the effect of baptism as remission 
of original sin. The Pelagians denying original sin, 
Augustine challenged them to explain the Catholic prac- 
tice of admitting infants to baptism, which, as being re- 
mission of sin, supposed sin in the recipients of it, and 
therefore in infant recipients, personal sin being im- 
possible, original sin. His argument thus naturally tended 
to create a particular exclusive aspect of the baptismal 
gift, as remission of original sm—pardon of the past 
without reference to grace for the future. “I willingly 
acknowledge,’ says Burgess, “that Augustine’s own 
opinion is that, in some sense, all infants do receive re- 
mission of sin in baptism; but yet in such sense, as doth 
not suffice for their salvation, if they be not of the number 
of the elect.” ’ 

It is true other phrases are used in these treatises 
besides that of “remission of sin.” Infants are said to 
“die to sin,” to be “rescued from the power of dark- 
ness,’ and sometimes “to be illuminated” in baptism ; 
but when these phrases are examined, we find that they 
refer to and mean remission of original sin; that it is 
original sin to which infants die in baptism, as being 
freed from the guilt of it; that it is the darkness of this 
guilt from which they are rescued; and the removal of 
this darkness which constitutes their illumination. 

Indeed we cannot but observe a remarkable difference 
in the precision with which St. Augustine speaks when 
he has to do with the regeneration of infants as remission 
of original sin, and when he has to do with it as positive 
renovation. He asserts with exactness enough, that all 
are freed from original sin in baptism, but when he comes 
to the question what grace they receive from baptism to 
renovate and convert them in after life as they grow up, 


* Bapt. Reg. of Elect Infants, p. 138. 


Cuap. XIII.| <Augustintantsm. 209 





his language halts and gives way, and he leaves a manifest 
chasm in his baptismal scheme. Let us take the well- 
known passage in his chief work against the Donatists :— 
“ Sicut in Isaac qui octavo die nativitatis sue circum- 
cisus est preecessit signaculum justitize fidei; et quoniam 
patris fidem imitatus est, secuta est in crescente ipsa 
justitia, cujus signaculum in infante preecesserat; ita in 
baptizatis infantibus preecedit regenerationis sacramentum ; 
et, si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequetur etiam in 
corde conversio cujus mysterium preecessit in corpore.” 
In this passage we come to a further sense of regenera- 
tion, in which it advances beyond remission of sin, and 
becomes positive renewal. How is the connexion of 
regeneration in this sense then, with baptism, conducted? 
In the first place, the grace is not spoken of as simul- 
taneous with the sacrament, but separated from it by an 
indefinite interval: the infant has the “ sacrament of re- 
generation,” but the “ res sacramenti” is obtained after- 
wards ; the one “ precedes,” the other “ follows”? upon 
certain conditions, viz. si Christianam tenuerint pietatem. 
In the second place, no grace is mentioned by which the 
infant, as he grows up, is enabled to fulfil this condition, 
and the scheme is left incomplete. There is an interval 
between the baptism of the infant, and his reception of 
the baptismal renewal, which is not filled up in this state- 
ment, and we are left in suspense—unless indeed we go 
to the general Augustinian scheme to bridge over this 
chasm, and supply the enabling grace wanted. But then 
with the reference to that scheme the wniversality of such 
enabling grace at once goes; inasmuch as that scheme 
only recognizes grace as enabling, when it is irresistible, 
and such grace is not given to all the baptized. In the 
third place, the nature itself of regeneration is represented 
as such, that, as a plain matter of fact, it is not attained 
by all baptized infants even as they grow up. For, inas- 
P 


210 A ugustinianism., [Parr I. 


much as baptism is called at the same time regenerationis 
sacramentum, and conversionis mysterium, regeneration is 
identified with conversion; and of this ‘ conversion ”’ 
again “Christian piety ” is made the condition. But 
without staying to ask why that is made the condition, 
which is indeed the actual thing, it is enough to observe 
that certainly all baptized infants do not, even as they 
grow up, show either “ conversion,” which is the gift, or 
“Christian piety,” which is the condition of the gift. 

The above-quoted statement is the type of a class. 

“ Induunt homines Christum aliquando usque ad sacra- 
menti perceptionem, aliquando et ad vite sanctificationem : 
atque illud primum et bonis et malis potest esse commune, 
hoc autem alterum proprium est bonorum et piorum.” * 

This statement exhibits the same chasm that the former 
did. We go at once, for there is nothing intermediate, 
from the visible sacrament to “sanctification of life.” 
But how this sanctification is obtained is not said. Pro- 
prium est bonorum ; but that is only to say that those 
who have it, have it. We are thrown back upon the 
general Augustinian scheme to supply the void, but that 
scheme only gives the grace for obtaining this sanctifica- 
tion to some, and not to all the baptized. Indeed if 
‘‘ sanctification of life”? stands here, as “ conversion ”’ 
did in the former passage, for the res sacramenti, the 
latter becomes ipso facto not the universal effect of infant 
baptism. | 

“Proinde colligitur invisibilem sanctificationem quibus- 
dam affuisse atque profuisse sine visibilibus sacramentis 

. visibilem vero sanctificationem, que fieret per visi- 
bilia sacramenta, sine ista invisibili posse adesse, non 
posse prodesse.”’ ° 

Here again there is nothing between the simple re- 


8 De Baptismo contra Donat. 1. v. ¢. 24. 
9 In Heptat. 1. in. c. 84. 


Cuap. XII.) <Augustinianism. 21 





ception of the sacrament or “ visible sanctification,” and 
actual conversion or “invisible sanctification.” No in- 
strument for gaining this “ invisible sanctification ” is 
supplied, no middle gift. To fill up this interval, and 
ascertain how invisible sanctification is gained, we must 
go to the Augustinian doctrine of grace. 

“ Horum itaque malorum preeteritus omnis reatus sacro 
fonte diluitur. Remittuntur ergo in renascentibus, mi- 
nuuntur in proficientibus. Ignorantia minuitur veritate 
magis magisque lucente: concupiscentia minuitur chari- 
tate magis magisque fervente.”’ * 

Here is the same chasm. Baptism removes the guilt 
of original concupiscence, but how does it enable us to 
conquer the living strength of it? The answer is that 
concupiscence is diminished by love. But how is love 
got? We must go to the Augustinian doctrine of grace. 

“ Auctum est [bonum] quo bonus esse coepit, minutum 
est quo malus esse coepit; et hoc egit post baptismum, 
non peregit in baptismo.”’ * 

We are not told whence and how the baptized infant, 
as he grew up, bonus esse cepit, and we must go, to 
answer this question, to the Augustinian doctrine of 
grace. 

Though the baptismal statements of Augustine, then, 
are decided enough so far as relates to remission of 
original sin to all infants in baptism, an evident hiatus 
appears in them when the other part of regeneration has 
to be dealt with. The infant’s hold upon this other part 
is not secure by baptism, but is left dependent upon con- 
ditions, the grace for fulfilling which is not mentioned in 
the statements, but is described elsewhere as arbitrarily 
given to some and not to others of the baptized. Re- 
generation in the case of adults always implies in Au- 


1 Contra Jul. Pel. 1. vi. c. 16. 2 Thid. 1. vi. c. 18. 
p 2 


202 Augustinianism. [Parr I. 


gustine actual goodness, for however he may regard 
remission of original sin as constituting it in the case of 
infants, he never contemplates a grown-up man as re- 
generate, unless he is also leading at the time a good 
life? But how, as the infant grows into the adult, does 
he become thus regenerate? We are thrown back upon 
his theory of arbitrary grace. And thus the same infant 
in the Augustinian scheme moritur peccato, in the sense 
of being delivered from the guilt of original sin, who, as 
one of those not endowed with the irresistible grace 
necessary for attaining actual goodness, is still left in 
massa peccati, and in massa perditions.* 


3 * Appellamus ergo nos Dei filios, quia sic appellandi sunt quos 
regeneratos pie vivere cernimus.” De Corrept. et Grat.c.9. “Nam 
isti cum pie vivunt dicuntur fil Dei, sed quoniam victuri sunt im- 
pie,” &c. Ibid. c. 9. 

4 Lombard, who founds his baptismal language upon St. Augus- 
tine’s, certainly distinguishes between the remission of original sin, 
which he assumes as the universal accompaniment of infant bap- 
tism, and the grace qua ad majorem venientes cetatem, possint velle 
et operart bonum, which he decides not to be bestowed upon infants 
(Note 14). And he interprets the Augustinian grant of the remission 
of original sin as made to non-elect infants with the salvo that it 
is not ad salutem. He appears to mean by this that Augustine 
does not give it in their case the supplement of the latter mentioned 
or positive part of the baptismal gift; and so to interpret that 
Father substantially in the same way in which Ward and Davenant . 
explain him. “ Sacramentum et rem simul suscipiunt omnes par- 
vuli, quiin baptismo ab originali mundantur peccato; quamvis 
quidam diffiteantur ilis qui perituri sint parvulis in baptismo 
dimitti peccata, innitentes illi verbo Aug. in lib. de baptism. par- 
vul. Sacramenta in solis electis efficiunt quod figurant ; non in- 
telligentes illud ita esse accipiendum, quia cum in aliis efficiant 
sacramenta remissionem, non hoc eis faciunt ad salutem, sed solis 
electis.” (L. iv. dist. 4.) That the particular quotation here is 
not genuine, does not affect this as a general judgment upon the 
nature of Augustine’s doctrine. ‘‘ We may observe,” says Burgess, 
“in this answer to Lombard, 1. A distinction between that re- 


Cuap. XIII.| Augustencanzsm. pe’ 


The Augustinian application of the term “ regenerate ” 
to all baptized infants, has hitherto been explained as a 
literal application, in an inadequate sense: but secondly 
we observe an evident disposition in another portion of 
Augustine’s language, to fall back upon an hypothetical 
application of the term. 

The Calvinists of the Reformation furnish an instance 
how theologians can combine the strong assertion of the 
grace of a sacrament generally, with a reserve as to who 
are the recipients of it. ‘* God truly effects,” says Calvin 
himself, “through baptism what it represents ””—“‘ Bap- 
tism is God’s ordinary instrument to wash and renew us.”’ 
“ The efficacy of the Spirit is present in baptism to cleanse 
and regenerate us.”* But withal he reserves to himself 
the right of saying afterwards that baptism is all this only 
to the elect. Nor doIsee that he is obnoxious on that 
account to the charge of “‘ mental reservation ”’ in a bad 
sense, brought against him by Archbishop Lawrence, as 
if he deceived the world by an apparent assertion of 
baptismal grace, which he explained away to himself. 
This form of statement is perfectly honestand is universally 
used, and indeed is necessary, for there must be some 
way of asserting the benefit of a sacrament considered in 
itself simply, and apart from the question who are the 
recipients of it. 

The Calvinists of the Reformation again were willing, 
besides asserting the grace of the sacrament generally, to 
call all the baptized regenerate ; they did so on principle, 
aud urged the propriety and duty of such a general 


mission of sin which is indifferently sealed unto all in baptism, and 
that grace which is necessary for them to obtain in it, that are un- 
doubtedly saved by it. 2. A confession that this last, to wit, grace 
unto salvation, is peculiar only unto the elect.” Bapt. Reg. of Elect 
Infants, p. 134. 

5 Tract. Theol. p. 683. Ibid. p. 258. Epist. p. 82. 


214 Augustinianism. [Parr I. 


application of the term; but they did so of course upon 
the supposition that the person so called was one of the 
elect and would finally persevere; and with the reserva- 
tion of their right to withdraw the title, if this supposition 
was not verified in fact. 

This liberty of language, and this principle of reserve 
have not been perhaps sufficiently taken imto account in 
estimating the baptismal language of St. Augustine. In 
various passages he certainly apologizes for the universal 
application of the term “ regenerate” to the baptized as 
having been only presumptive and hypothetical; and 
though mixed with this hypothetical application he still 
leaves a literal application in some sense or other— 
sacramento tenus, say his Calvinistic interpreters °—the 
explanation certainly amounts to a retractation of the 
term either in the letter or the spirit, as thus universally 
applied. 

In the following passage, for example, he tells us that 
though he calls all the baptized regenerate, it is with the 
understanding that if they do not persevere, the applica- 
tion of the term to them has been from the first incorrect; 
having been made only on the supposition of a future final 
perseverance. 

“Anpellamus ergo nos etelectos et Christi discipulos et Dei 
jilios, quia sic appellandi sunt quos regeneratos pie vivere 
cernimus; sed tunc vere appellantur, si manserint in eo 
propter quod sic appellantur. Si autem perseverantiam 
non habent, i.e. in eo quod coeperunt esse non manent, 
non vere appellantur quod appellantur et non sunt.” ‘ 

For “child of God” here put the confessedly con- 


6 “ Augustine observeth,” says Bp. Carlton, “a great difference 
between them that are regenerate only sacramento tenus, and those 
that are regenerate and justified according to the purpose of God’s 
election.” An Examination, p. 193. 

7 De Corrept. et Grat. c. 9. 


Coap. XIII.) <Augustinzanism. 215 


vertible term “ regenerate,” and how does this passage 
stand? ‘We call them regenerate because those are to 
be called so who have been regenerated and live piously ; 
but if they have not perseverance they are not truly called 
so.” We observe then first of all a verbal contradiction 
in this passage, for the writer says of the same persons 
that they are regenerate, and they are not regenerate,— 
“quos regeneratos” asserting the former, and “non 
sunt” the latter. Are we then to dismiss this passage 
as being absolutely without meaning? No candid com- 
mentator would dismiss in such a way a statement, 
which in spite of a certain carelessness of expression 
suggests so very obvious a meaning as this does. We 
cannot suppose that St. Augustine applies the term to and 
withholds it from the same persons in the same sense ; 
he applies it then in one sense, he withholds it in 
another. What are these two senses respectively then ? 
The sense in which he withholds it is plainly the real 
genuine and true sense,—non vere appellantur: the sense 
in which he applies it thenis notthe trueone. The natural 
meaning of the passage is that though in some secondary 
sense, or presumptively and hypothetically, we call all the 
baptized regenerate, only those are really so, who subse- 
quently prove their title to the epithet by final perse- 
verance. 

Again; “ Nec nos moveat quod filiis suis quibusdam 
Deus non dat istam perseverantiam... Nam isti cum 
pievivunt dicuntur filii Det, sed quoniam victuri sunt impie 
et in eadem impietate morituri, non eos dicit filios Dei 
preescientia Dei.” ® 

Here is the same mode of testing the present by the 
future, the reality of the individual’s regeneration now by 
the issue of it hereafter. Those who will not in the event 


8 De Corrept. et Grat. c. 9. 


216 A ugustinianism. [Parr I. 


persevere “are called” the children of God or regenerate, 
but “the foreknowledge of God does not call them so.” The 
foreknowledge of God sees that their so “ called” regene- 
ration will issue in nothing, and therefore decides against 
their so “called” regeneration as not real regeneration. 
The statement “ dicuntur filii Dei, sed non eos dicit filios 
Dei preescientia Dei,” answers to the “appellantur et non 
sunt ”’ of the preceding passage. 

Again; “Cum ergo filii Dei dicunt de his qui perseve- 
rantiam non habuerunt, ex nobis exierunt sed non erant ex 
nobis, quid aliud dicunt nisi, Von erant fil etiam quando 
erant im professione et nomine filiorum ? non quia justitiam 
simulaverunt, sed quia in ea non permanserunt. Hrant 
itaque in bono, sed quia in eo non permanserunt, 1. e. non 
usque in finem perseverarunt, non erant, inquit, ex nobis 
et quando erant nobiscum, hoc est, non erant ex numero 
filiorum, et quando erant in fide filiorum; quomam qu 
vere filii sunt, preesciti et preordinati sunt conformes ima- 
ginis Filit ejus, et secundum propositum vocats sunt ut elects 
essent.” ° 

This passage presents exactly the same test of the 
reality of regeneration that the preceding ones did, viz. the 
future issue of it. Those who are not about to persevere 
are allowed a temporary grace, but even at the time of 
receiving it they are deprived of real sonship, and pro- 
nounced, because they are not sons eventually, never to 
have been sons from the first. Non erant fil etiam quando 
erant, 5c. ‘The elect alone are really regenerate—vere 
fil sunt. 

Again; “Nonne postremo ... per lavacrum regene- 
rationis utrique renovati? Sed si hec audiret ille, qui 
sciebat proculdubio quod dicebat, respondere posset et 
dicere: vera sunt heec, secundum hec omnia ex nobis 


° De Corrept. et Grat. c. 9. 


Cuar. XIII.] Augustinzanesm. o07 


erant ; veruntamen secundum aliam quandam discretionem 
non erant ex nobis; nam si fuissent ex nobis, mansissent 
ubique nobiscum. Que est tandem ista discretio? 
Patent libri Dei, non avertamus aspectum: clamat  scrip- 
tura divina, adhibeamus auditum. Non erant ex nobis 
quia non erant secundum propositum vocati, non erant in 
Christo electi ante constitutionem mundi, non erant in eo 
sortem consecuti, non erant preedestinati secundum pro- 
positum ejus qui universa operatur.” * 

The phrase “ex nobis” in this passage means, as we 
know from the last passage, “ex numero filiorum.” It 
is asserted here then that the non-elect have been per 
lavacrum regenerationis renovati, but that they have never 
been regenerate or filii, What can this mean but that 
they have been nominally regenerate, but not really? 
The term is evidently withheld in a true and real 
sense, and therefore only allowed in an incorrect or 
presumptive one. The result of the whole language of 
these passages, in short, is to establish a Church within a 
Church, an existing Church of the elect within the visible 
mixed Church ; which inner body is alone the true Church 
of Christ. To this body reference is made in the expres- 
sions, “ex nobis,” “vere filii,”’ &c., and membership of 
this body given according to a secret arbitrary decree is 
declared to be alone real membership of Christ, real son- 
ship, real regeneration. 

No candid writer will, I think, deny that these passages, 
though written with fulness rather than precision, admit 
of a natural and obvious construction, and that St. Augus- 
tine in them throws some light upon his own meaning in 
calling all baptized infants, without distinction, regene- 
rate; that having made the assertion he afterwards 
explains it, and that the explanation substantially amounts 


1 De Dono Perseverantiz, c. 9. 


218 Augustinianism. PPape re. 


to retracting the term in its true sense, where the event 
shows that the person to whom it was applied, on the 
mere strength of his baptism, did not finally persevere, 
and by so doing show himself to be one of the elect: that 
he makes election or predestination to life a condition of 
true regeneration; and that in the mean time he applies 
the term with a reserve, waiting for the issue to show 
whether those who are called so are really and truly so, 
or whether non vere appellantur quod appellantur et non 
sunt. 

I have thus drawn attention to some explanations of 
St. Augustine’s application of the term “regenerate” to 
all baptized infants, as made simultaneously with his 
predestinarian statements. But I must now again remind 
the reader, that whether such explanations are right or 
wrong, theresult does not affect the argument of this chapter. 
The argument of this chapter turns simply upon the 
question whether Augustine’s doctrine of Predestination 
is consistent with the doctrine of the regeneration of all 
infants in baptism. And this question has been decided. 
It was proved in the first part of this chapter that one of 
these doctrines is totally inconsistent with the other. 
Whatever may have been the results, therefore, which 
Augustine himself individually drew from his own doc- 
trine of predestination, and whether he saw all the results 
or not, and in particular whether he saw fully the results 
upon the baptismal question or not,—all this has nothing 
to do with the real argument. The first systematic 
teacher of predestinarianism has no more right on that 
account than any other person to dictate the bearing 
which that doctrine has upon the baptismal question. 
Once out and formally promulgated, that doctrine is out 
of the promulgator’s hands, and the question whether or 
not it is consistent with another given doctrine, must be 
decided by the plain rules of common sense, and not by 


Cuap. XIII.) <Augustentanism. 219 


the arbitrary opinion of the author, who can no more 
check the argumentative consequences of his own system 
than any other person can. 

Had antiquity, then, wished to impose and enforce the 
position that all baptized infants possessed a true regene- 
rating grace, enabling them to attain salvation, as an 
article of the faith, there was one plain course which it 
ought to have taken; it ought to have condemned St. 
Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. Whatever the 
language of St. Augustine individually as regards that 
baptismal position may have been, there was a doctrine 
laid down in his writings, which intrinsically contradicted 
it, which not only cut at the very root of a universal 
saving grace accompanying infant baptism, but in actual 
sense and meaning denied it; which denied that all 
baptized infants had as they grew up that grace which 
was necessary to attain salvation. The doctrine was 
clear, full, open, and decisive, it was proclaimed to the 
whole Church, it challenged criticism, it called aloud for 
judgment and condemnation, on the supposition that the 
other position was essential, and a part of the Catholic 
faith. But it was passed over by authority wholly and 
absolutely, and to this present hour not one word has the 
Church Catholic spoken in condemnation of this doctrine. 
The plain and necessary inference is, that the position 
which it contradicts is not an article of the faith, and 
that predestinarianism being a Catholic liberty, the 
denial of the regeneration of all infants in baptism is not 
heresy. 


CHAPTER XIV 
CONCLUSION 


AN examination of the doctrine of “ Baptismal Regene- 
ration” issues in what is not an uncommon result of 
examination, viz. in our becoming aware that the truth 
on the subject is not contained within the compass of the 
single phrase or formula which is used, for the sake of 
shortness and convenience, to denote the doctrine. 
Persons who have not examined this question are accus- 
tomed to rest in the phrase itself—‘‘ Baptismal Regene- 
ration ’’—as the sum total of the doctrine; for inasmuch 
as they are not conscious of the assumptions they make 
in their own mode of applying this general formula, 
everything is, as it were, in their eyes shut in a nutshell. 
But when they came to examine the matter, they would 
find that what they had supposed to be the whole doctrine 
was in fact not so much the doctrine as a heading to it; 
and that when they had got the phrase “ Baptismal 
Regeneration,” they were as yet only upon the threshold 
of the substantial contents of the subject which was 
denoted by that phrase. For what is regeneration? And 
what are the terms on which it is given in baptism? And 
how do those terms stand in the two cases of adults and 
infants? Is regeneration conditional in both, or only in 
one and not in the other? And what are the relations of 
time between the sign and the thing signified, the sacra- 
ment and the grace? Is the grace always given at the 
actual time of baptism, or may it be separated in time 


Conclusion. ~ 221 


from the rite, and be given before it, or not till after it ? 
These are questions which are none of them settled by 
the mere phrase, ‘‘ Baptismal Regeneration,” which only 
states generally a connexion between the rite and the 
grace, leaving the particulars with respect to the con- 
ditions and the time for further decision. But it is of 
these particulars that the baptismal question substantially 
consists, and upon them that the whole controversy turns. 
And the way in which these questions have been dealt 
with in the Church—some having been decided with 
general agreement, others not—this actual history of the 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration constitutes the mate- 
rial of the doctrine ; part of it being settled material, and 
part of it controversial. In the case of principles or 
maxims of law, we know that the substance of them lies 
in a number of applications of the general formula which 
expresses the principle, and in the growth of a variety of 
distinctions and modifications in such course of appli- 
cation. And in somewhat the same way the substance 
of the rule of baptismal regeneration lies in the way in 
which the rule has been applied, lies in the actual history 
of it, and in the growth of successive actual interpreta- 
tions of it; in some of which there has been substantial 
agreement, in others not. 

The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration leaves Scripture 
unformed and incomplete. What is contained in Scrip- 
ture is @ connexion between the two, baptism and re- 
generation; a connexion, however, of which the par- 
ticulars are not determined,’ except as respects the con- 
ditions of faith and repentance in adults. ‘The remainder 
of the doctrine which relates, first, to the conditions in 
the case of infants, and, secondly, to the relation of time 
between the sacrament and the grace, was handed over 


1 Chapter u. 


222 Conclusion. [Parr T; 


to the Church to be dealt with according to the best of 
her judgment, and subject to such differences of opinion 
as may legitimately arise upon questions which are left 
undetermined in Scripture. 

1. With respect to the conditions of regeneration, a 
broad distinction was drawn by the doctors of antiquity 
between infants and adults; this grace being maintained 
to be conditional in the case of adults, unconditional in 
the case of infants. That is to say, it was decided that 
all infants were regenerate in baptism. In ruling a point 
left open in Scripture, however, in this way, the writers 
of antiquity did not explain how they reconciled their 
dictum with the plain sense of the term “ regenerate,” or 
“born of God,’ in Scripture. One great difficulty in 
this whole question would indeed be got rid of, if we 
could make the term “regenerate” or “ born of God”’ 
mean what we pleased; but this word, like other words, 
has a meaning of its own, which it bears in Scripture,’ 
and in theological use from the first ;* and this meaning 
implies more than a faculty or capacity, and more than 
remission of original sin,* and admission to a covenant, 
viz. actual goodness. But even if it is allowed that 
infants can have actual goodness implanted in them in 
baptism, as a seminal character, as a character 1s said to 
be implanted in some persons at birth, which we call 
a natural character; yet it is contrary to plain facts 
to say that all baptized infants have such implanted 
goodness, because if they had they would all show it as 
they grow up, which is opposed to plain experience. If 
the Fathers, therefore, in the dictum that all infants are 
regenerate in baptism, use the word in its Scriptural 
sense, they say in this dictwm what is contrary to plain 
experience; if they use the word in a sense short of its 


? Chapter v. 3 Chapters vi. vil. vii. 4 Chapter iv. 


Cuap. XIV. | Conclusion. 223 


Scriptural one, they say what is no part of revealed 
truth; if they use the word ambiguously, they say we do 
not know what. And the latter is the alternative to 
which the division among interpreters seems to point; 
the very divines who agree in accepting this dictum 
disagreeing totally as to what it means, and taking it in 
contradictory senses.” 

It must be added that the doctrine of the regeneration 
of all infants in baptism, besides its collision with the 
meaning of the word “regenerate,” also struck upon 
another rock, viz. the doctrine of Predestination ; which, 
though in actual meaning contradictory to it, obtained 
full toleration from antiquity, and has met with no con- 
demnation from the Church up to the present day.* 

Such, however, being the strong line of demarcation 
drawn in antiquity between infants and adults in relation 
to baptism, the divines of the Reformation for the most 
part adopted a different position, and decided that the 
grace of baptism was given to infants upon the same 
principle on which it was given to adults, viz. conditionally ; 
the condition being sometimes described as a future actual 
faith in them when grown up, sometimes as a present 
sure seed or root of faith implanted in them as infants. 
And this method of treating the two cases upon the same 
principle involved the same consequence in both cases, 
viz. that all infants were not regenerate in baptism any 
more than all adults were; for that all infants had not 
this seminal, any more than. all adults had actual faith 
before baptism; or were all going to have actual faith 
any more than all adults had it already. 

2. With respect to the relation of time between the 
sacrament and the grace, it has been ruled with complete 
consent that the connexion of the two—the sacrament 


® Chapter xii. 6 Chapter xiii. 


224 Conclusion. [Part I. 


and the grace—does not require that the grace should be 
given simultaneously with the sacrament. This is, indeed, 
but a natural adjunct of that fundamental law of the 
institution of baptism which makes it a sacrament to be 
administered once for all, and prohibits the repetition of 
it ; from which law it would in all equity follow that the 
whole subsequent grace of the sacrament should not be 
dependent upon the particular state of mind in the indi- 
vidual at the time of admission to it. This result then 
of the law of non-repetition of baptism is sufficiently 
apparent in Scripture, and was assumed with entire 
consent by antiquity in its judgment in the case of the 
Fictus, in which it was laid down decisively that the rite 
of baptism could precede the first reception of the grace 
by an indefinite interval of time.’ So far, however, in 
ruling that the reception of the grace need not be simul- 
taneous with the rite, it was only ruled that the rite could 
precede the grace. But it was also decided with entire 
consent that faithful adults who died wnbaptized had the 
grace of baptism, on account of their faith and holiness, 
without the rite ; and upon the basis of this judgment it 
was afterwards further ruled that the faithful adult who 
was baptized had the grace of baptism, by virtue of his 
faith and holiness, before the rite. That is to say, it was 
ruled that the grace could precede the rite by an 
indefinite interval. The necessity of the sign being 
simultaneous with the thing signified was thus relaxed at 
both ends, and the connexion of the grace and the rite 
was pronounced to be subject to this important modifica- 
tion, that the rite might be before the grace, or the grace 
before the rite. The Reformation divines took up the 
existing judgments of the Fathers and the Schools which 
had been formed in the case of adults, and applied them 


? Chapter 111. 8 Chapter ix. 


Cuap. XIV. | Conclusion. 225 


to the case of infants; who, upon their own scheme, had 
the grace of baptism on the same principle on which 
adults had, viz. conditionally upon faith, either a seminal 
before baptism, or actual after baptism. 

1. Upon this general statement of the case there arises, 
first, the observation made above that the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration, as existing in actual theology, is 
composed of a succession of judgments or applications 
of the general principle, or of a growth of distinctions 
and modifications, which arose according as the general 
principle of the connexion of the grace with the sacrament 
had to accommodate itself to other general principles of 
equity or of morals, or came across difficulties arising 
from other allowed doctrine, or from the meaning of the 
word “regenerate” itself. It was a principle of equity 
which obtained the judgment that in the case of the adult 
unbelieving at the time, but afterwards believing, the 
rite preceded the grace. It was a truth of morals which 
obtained the judgment that the faithful and repentant 
adult was justified before baptism, or that the grace 
could precede the rite. The allowed doctrine of pre- 
destination again contained in itself, by virtue of its 
actual meaning, an allowed limitation of the baptismal 
doctrine; and the very Scriptural sense of regeneration 
contained the same. These limitations and modifications 
then of the baptismal doctrine, as held in antiquity and 
as developed and further extended by the Reformation 
divines, are what actually compose and form the material 
of the doctrine in the page of theology; part of it con- 
sentient and part of it controverted material: and the 
short phrase, “ Baptismal Regeneration,” is the heading 
to that large and complex mass and formation of state- 
ment and distinction, of which I have endeavoured to 
give a summary in the preceding pages. 

2. Another observation is, that what is called the 

Q 


226 ' Conclusion. 


Sacramental System was found in actual application not 
to cover all the facts of Christianity, some of which were 
left outside of it,and those not mere isolated cases, but 
a class of facts, viz. the whole formation of Christian 
faith and holiness in adults, and their consequent justifi- 
cation, previous to the sacraments ; showing a void in the 
sacramental system which requires a supplementary law, 
and reveals an opening into another counterbalancing 
system. 

3. But though such observations as these, formed upon 
a general review of a large field of material, are not with- 
out their place in the consideration of this subject, they 
are all subordinate to one plain and simple distinction, 
viz. the distinction between that part of the doctrine of 
baptism which is‘in Scripture, and that which les outside 
of Scripture. It must be admitted that Scripture is silent 
with respect to infants as recipients of the grace of bap- 
tism ; and this being the case, it follows that, though the 
doctors of antiquity give one plan.of this omitted ground, 
the divines of the Reformation another, neither plan can, 
according to the rule of faith adopted by our Church,’ 
compel our acceptance ; and that therefore, according to 
the rule of our Church, the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism is not an article of the faith. 


9 Chapter 1. 


A cea ioe te i | 


CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 


THE question which the Gorham Judgment decided was 
a considerably narrower one than it was understood to be 
at the time. No question relating to the grace of bap- 
tism generally was decided by that judgment, nor was 
the opinion which that judgment pronounced to be per- 
missible and consistent with our formularies, the opinion 
that no grace attaches to the Sacrament of Baptism. 
The judgment, on the contrary, supposed a certain grace 
attaching to that sacrament, and the opinion which it 
pronounced to be tenable within our Church was the 
opinion that that grace is never received without con- 
ditions; “that in no case is baptism unconditional.’ ! 


1 The statement of opinion decided by the Gorham Judgment not 
to be contrary to the doctrine of the Church of England is as follows: 
“That baptism is a sacrament generally necessary to salvation, 
but that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accom- 
pany the act of baptism that regeneration invariably takes place 
in baptism; that the grace may be granted before, in, or after 
baptism ; that baptism is an effectual sign of grace by which God 
works invisibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it—in 
them alone it has a wholesome effect; and that without reference 
to the qualification of the recipient it is not in itself an effectual 
sign of grace; that infants baptized and dying before actual sin 
are undoubtedly saved, but that in no case is baptism wneon- 
ditional.” 

Q 2 


228 Introduction. [Parr IT. 


The conditional character of the grace of baptism, con- 
fessed on both sides in the case of adults, was disputed 
in the case of infants as inconsistent with the formularies 
of our Church; and the point which was decided was 
that the opinion which extended its conditional character 
to the case of infants was not inconsistent with those for- 
mularies. The judgment was concerned then with the 
question, not of the grace of the sacrament, but of the 
recipients of that grace. For, the grace admitted and 
assumed,” it is a further question who are the recipients 
of it, or what constitutes the qualification for receiving 
it; and, in particular, whether the infantine state as such 
is a qualification and constitutes a worthy recipient. The 
formularies of the Church then were asserted on one side 
to decide this question in the affirmative, and to pro- 
nounce dogmatically that all infants were regenerate in 
baptism; while, on the other, it was maintained that our 
formularies did not assert this dogmatically, but left the 
question whether the regeneration of infants in baptism 
was conditional—i. e. whether all infants were regenerate 
in baptism or not—an open question; the view which 
was adopted by the Court, and formed what is called the 
Gorham Judgment. 

The Gorham Judgment, in short, did not decide upon 
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but upon a parti- 
cular application of the doctrine. For the doctrine of 
baptismal regeneration and the doctrine of the regenera- 
tion of all infants in baptism are not identical, though 
they have been often virtually treated as such in recent 


2 More notice ought to have been taken, than has been, of the plain 
and decided admission of the grace of the sacrament, as distin- 
cuished from the question of the conditions upon which it is re- 
ceived, made by the appellant side in the Gorham case: and I 
would call special attention to the strong and thoughtful language 
of the Dean of Ripon on this subject. Note 27. 


Cuap. I.] Introduction. 229 


controversy. ‘The one is the assertion that baptism im- 
parts regeneration to qualified persons; the other the 
further or particular assertion that certain persons are 
qualified. This latter question may, indeed, be decided 
correctly or incorrectly, and the doctrine may be held 
with this correct or incorrect adjunct; but the doctrine 
is the doctrine, as just stated, and not this adjunct. 

The Gorham Judgment, however, as it has been guarded 
from being taken to mean too much, must also be guarded 
from being taken to mean too little. It is a curious 
instance of the ambiguity of human language that this 
judgment was no sooner out than its meaning was dis- 
puted, and that not on any collateral but on the funda- 
mental point. The late Mr. Baron Alderson suggested, 
in a letter to the Bishop of Exeter, that the opinion 
“that the grace of baptism is in no case unconditional,”’ 
being quite consistent with the opinion that infancy itself 
is an adequate condition, the judgment in allowing the 
former opinion gave no liberty to deny the latter, or 
therefore to deny the regeneration of all infants in bap- 
tism.* But such an interpretation however ingenious, 
and dictated by however amiable a motive, is inadmis- 
sible, because, if we say that the grace of baptism is not 
even in the case of infants unconditional, we refer in the 
very form of speaking to some condition over and above 
the fact of their being infants. The judgment then must 


3 Baron Alderson’s “ Letter to the Bishop of Exeter.”—*“ Selec- 
tions from the Charges and other Detached Papers of Baron Alder- 
son,” p. 230. 

This interpretation appears to be indorsed by the Bishop of 
Exeter (Pastoral Letter, 1857, p. 5), who, however, is quite correct 
in saying that “the Gorham Judgment has not ruled that the 
doctrine of spiritual regeneration in baptism is left in our Church 
an open question ;” the judgment not being concerned with the 
general question of the grace of the sacrament at all, but with 
another and a subordinate question exclusively. 


230 Introduction. [Parr IT. 


be taken in the sense which general opinion attaches to 
it, and must be considered to permit as tenable the 
opinion that all infants are not regenerate in baptism ; 
while, on the other hand, to permit this opinion is by no 
means to permit a denial of the grace of the sacrament. 

From defining what the point of doctrine was which 
was decided in the Gorham. Judgment to be tenable 
within the English Church, I turn to the Church’s test of 
doctrine. Nothing need have been said on this head 
were it not for a certain supposition which has been put 
forward, in connexion with this controversy, that the test 
of doctrine in our Church is one particular construction or 
sense of her formularies, called the Catholic—a sense not 
necessarily belonging to the words, but supplementary 
to them. ‘This supposition if true alters the nature of 
the Church’s test of doctrine, and supplants the formula- 
ries themselves as constituting this test. Are they con- 
sistent with a certain opinion themselves? Still this 
particular supposed construction of them may not be. 
The test of overt languagdé is superseded by the test of 
an unexpressed sense. 

But this supposition appears to be altogether without 
evidence or authority. The Church’s test of doctrine is 
contained in the form of subscription ; and in the form of 
subscription no allusion is made to any such sense in 
which these formularies are to be understood. We are 
not required to assent to the documents in one particular 
sense, but to assent to the documents. 

Nor, must it be observed, is this any proof that the 
Church does not aim at agreement with antiquity, but 
only that she expresses her estimate of antiquity mm her 
formularies; which formularies, therefore, must contain 
such estimate in their natural sense, without any need of 
recourse to a supplementary sense. The Church, in 
forming her exposition of Christian doctrine, had all the 


Crap. I.] Introduction. 231 





data and sources of Christian truth before her; and, 
among the rest, she had, so far as she thought it neces- 
sary to avail herself of them, antiquity and the Fathers. 
When that exposition of doctrine then comes out in the 
shape of certain articles and formularies, it must be un- 
derstood as expressing her interpretation of antiquity. 
And this being the case, to go back to antiquity again 
for the interpretation of these formularies, would be to 
reverse the natural order of things, and instead of using 
the interpretation to decide the meaning of the ori- 
ginal document, to use the original document to decide 
the meaning of the interpretation. 

The recommendation of our Church, in the Canons of 
1571, to preachers, “that they do not teach anything 
in their sermons, save what is agreeable to the doctrine 
of the Old and New Testaments, and what the Catholic 
Fathers and Ancient Bishops have gathered from that 
doctrine,” undoubtedly recommends what is in her judg- 
ment primitive doctrine as true. But it is one thing to 
recommend such doctrine as true, and another to append 
it as supplementary, i.e. as furnishing a supplementary 
sense to the formularies of the Church. Nothing can be 
more natural than that the Church, having constructed 
her formularies in agreement with primitive doctrine, as 
she understood it, should send her clergy to the same 
source of information which she had used herself; but 
such a recommendation does not at all show that she 
thinks her formularies defective in the expression of 
primitive doctrine, and wanting a supplementary sense 
from that quarter. 

But are the formularies of the Church necessarily a 
perfectly adequate expression of her faith, or may they not 
omit points which the Church still intends to be believed ? 
It is possible they may, but still the Church imposes no 
doctrine but what she expresses; and the remedy to such 


220 Introduction. [Parr IT. 


an omission, if there is one, is a correction or addition to 
the formularies, and not an obligatory unexpressed sense 
of them.* 

Nor is precedent, less than common sense, in favour of 
such a rule, and against the claim to judge men by an 
unexpressed sense, as distinguished from the language of 
creeds and formularies. The Church has always made 
language her test, nor, when her written creed was found 
an inadequate expression of the article of our Lord’s 
Divinity, did she continue to use the imperfect docu- 
ment, and judge the Arians by the Catholic sense 
of it; but corrected the creed so as to express that 
sense, and then demanded subscription to the corrected 
creed. 

The hypothesis, however, of inadequate expression is 
only applicable correctly to an earlier stage of doctrine, 
when those questions have not been mooted or those 
differences arisen which call for accuracy and fulness of 
definition. It is strangely out of place, as applied to our 
Church’s statements on the baptismal question, constructed 
in a developed state of that question, when the differences 
connected with it had come out, and undergone great 
discussion. The very character of the Articles on this 


* Two points of belief have been noticed as omitted in our formu- 
laries, the inspiration of Scripture, and the personality of the 
devil. With respect to the former, the assertion of its omission 
appears to be a mistake. The Articles expressly refer to the Bible 
as the “ Word of God,” which is to assert its inspiration. Nor 
would it have been easy for the Church to say more on this point 
without going into distinctions which are fair subjects for latitude 
of opinion. The latter is certainly nowhere formally laid down, 
but it would be more reasonable to suppose in this case that the 
Church was satisfied with the general de facto belief in a point 
which she had not unnaturally passed over as uncontroverted, 
rather than that she enforced it by a supplementary unexpressed 
sense of her formularies. 


Caap. I. ] Introduction. 233 


subject, worded with the utmost caution and deliberation, 
evidently upon a survey of a variety of opinions and a 
large growth of controversy, through which they steer 
their way with the most jealous determination to say just 
as much as and no more than is considered necessary 
for sound faith, forbids such a supposition, and supplies, 
on the contrary, the strongest reason for reckoning our 
Church’s statements on this subject to be an adequate 
expression of her faith upon it. 

I cannot, indeed, but observe that the claim for a supple- | 
mentary Catholic sense, in addition to the language of 
our formularies, comes not very consistently from those 
who appeal at the same time to the simple language of 
those formularies, as self-evidently decisive on this ques- 
tion: for why is a supplementary sense wanted if the 
language is proof positive by itself? 

One of the ablest assailants of the Gorham Judgment 
falls unconsciously into this contradiction, and while 
asserting his conclusion as evident from the Church’s 
express language, at the same time demands for this 
language the Catholic as distinguished from the “legal 
principle” of interpretation; and urges that there should 
be made, as soon as it shall be found practicable, “a 
public, formal, and authoritative declaration, that of all 
the various interpretations which by possible construction 
may be given to the formularies of the Reformation, 
that alone which has been from the first the doctrine of 
the Catholic Church shall henceforth be recognized as 
the doctrine of the Church of England.” * But if the 
language of our Church is open to “ various constructions,” 
some other construction besides the particular one for 
which this writer contends is admissible; and if a new 
doctrinal statement is wanted to enforce a doctrine, it is 


5 Archdeacon Dodgson’s Controversy of Faith, p. 101. 


34 L[utroduction. 





plain that our formularies do not enforce it as they 
stand.® 


6 Though the imposition of a supplementary unexpressed sense 
which is more stringent than the language of our formularies is un- 
tenable, it is an entirely different question, whether the subscriber 
may not be allowed in certain cases a relawation of the strictly 
literal sense. Such a liberty of divergence from the sense, being a 
concession to the subscriber and an accommodation for his benefit, 
because otherwise he could not accept the language, has at any rate 
no objection to meet with on the subscriber’s part: but if, when he 
could accept the language, he is stopped by a supposed sense which 
is more stringent than the language, he has a right to throw him- 
self upon the form of subscription as excluding such a claim, by 
the simple fact of omitting all reference to such sense, and only 
requiring his assent to the document. 


CHAPTER II 
THE INFANT BAPTISMAL SERVICE 


Tue formularies of our Church may be divided broadly 
into Articles and Services ; though this is not an exact 
division. Under the head of Articles however we may 
place the Creeds to which the Articles demand assent, 
and also some dogmatic statements appended to the 
Services though not forming partof them. I reserve the 
Catechism, which does not come under either head, for 
another chapter. 

The first division of our formularies then will not 
occupy us long, because it is obvious upon a slight 
examination, that there is nothing in their language at all 
definitive on the question before us. The clause in the 
Nicene Creed : “ I believe in one baptism for the remission 
of sins,” only mentions a particular benefit attaching to 
the sacrament as such, leaving open the further question 
who are the recipients of, or what are the conditions 
of, this benefit. The Twenty-seventh Article, and that 
part of the Twenty-fifth which relates to baptism, con- 
tain, it is admitted, nothing conclusive on the present 
question; the statement that the sacraments “are effec- 
tual signs of grace,” leaving the question open who are 
the recipients of that grace.’ The dogmatic statement 
appended to the service for the Public Baptism of Infants, 
“Tt is certain by God’s word that children which are 


1 “The Article leaves it doubtful what worthy reception is.” 
Sir H. J. Fust’s Judgment, p. 34. 


236 The Infant Baptismal Service. [Part II. 


baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are un- 
doubtedly saved,” may be accepted and subscribed with 
perfect honesty by one who thinks it certain by God’s 
word that all infants, even those who are unbaptized, 
dying before they commit actual sin are saved, because 
he regards it as inconsistent with the character of 
Goodness and Mercy assigned to God in Scripture, that 
He should exclude from salvation any beings who never 
committed actual sin. There is nothing in the terms of 
this statement, as they lie before us, to prevent the person 
just mentioned from subscribing to it; even without 
taking into consideration that, whereas the Articles of 
1586, in asserting that “children dying in their infancy 
shall undoubtedly be saved,” add, “and else not,” this 
addition is pointedly omitted in the statement before us. 
It may be accepted and subscribed to again with perfect 
honesty by predestinarians, who regard the early death 
of Christian infants and their removal from the evil to 
come as the sign of their election, but who would justly 
observe that to hold that some, i. e. elect infants were saved 
was one thing, and to hold that al/ baptized infants 
were regenerate was another.’ This statement speaks 
of a certain class of baptized infants, viz. those who ‘‘ die 
before they commit actual sin,” and what it asserts is 
limited to them: it does not speak of all baptized 
infants.* 


2 “ Quos electione sua dignatus est Dominus, si, accepto regenera- 
tionis signo, presenti vita ante demigrent quam aboleverint, eos 
virtute sui Spiritus nobis incomprehensa renovat, quo modo ex- 
pedire solus ipse providet.” Calvin, Instit. 1. 4, c. 16. 

3 The translation of “renatis” in the Latin Article 1X. by 
“baptized” in the English Article of 1552 and 1562, cannot imply 
that these two are equivalent terms, which would be by universal 
admission a gross error, involving even impenitent and unbelieving 
adults being regenerate by baptism: and not implying this, the 
translation proves nothing in regard to the present question. 


Cuap. II.| Zhe Lnfant Baptismal Service. 237 


From the dogmatic formularies of the Church then we 
turn to the services, and there we go at once to that 
statement upon which this whole controversy has mainly 
hinged—the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service, 
that “this child is regenerate.” 

Here then we have undoubtedly a literal statement* 
made by the Church, respecting every baptized infant, 
that it is regenerate; and the only question is, is it 
necessary to give it a literal meaning, or is an hypothetical 
meaning admissible ? 

I. Let us take first then the broad popular argument 
that this is a literal statement, and that therefore it must 
have a literal meaning, and that it is an obvious violation 
of language to give it any other. Is this argument 
correct then, and has this statement necessarily a literal 
meaning because it is a literal statement ? 

This argument is disposed of at once by a simple 
reference to the obvious and admitted fact that the 
Church does in her services make use of a form of state- 
ment which is literal in terms, but not in meaning. The 
instances of this kind of language in our Prayer Book 
are so familiar and well known, that it is hardly necessary 
to cite them here; it is enough to refer to this usage as 
one which is adopted by the Church and adopted upon 
principle. She frames her services upon the principle 
of charitable presumption—a rule which pervades the 
language of society and common life, and is largely used 


The same answer may be made with respect to the conjunction 
in the Fifteenth Article,—“ Sed nos reliqui etiam baptizati, et in 
Christo regenerati.” 

4 By “literal statement,” I mean, of course, literal in form, 
literal as far as words go. The epithet literal may be used either 
of the sense of a term, to denote its true as distinguished from a 
secondary or incorrect sense; or of the application of a term, to 
denote its being predicated in matter of fact, not hypothetically. 


238 The Infant Baptismal Service. | Parr IL. 


in Scripture. Indeed a little reflection will show how 
difficult it would be to frame public services upon any 
other. We have no right to deprive the true members 
of the Church of the language which is due to them, and 
if we apply the language to any we must apply it to all, 
because we do not know which are the true, and which 
are the false members. Thus even the ordinary language 
of public prayer supposes all the congregation to be true 
worshippers of God, a supposition which issues in the 
kind of statement which we are now considering, literal 
in form, but not intended to be taken literally, such as 
that in the Te Deum “ we,’ i.e. all here, ‘‘do put our 
trust in Thee.” It is true that our Church services 
suppose what is but too certain in fact, that we are all 
sinners, but they also presume what is only true as a 
supposition, that we are all sincere and true penitents 
and worshippers. 

The argument then that the statement in the Infant 
Baptismal Service has necessarily a literal meaning, 
because it is a literal statement, receives a plain refutation 
from the fact of a class of statements in the services, 
which are literal in form but not in meaning; and is 
rendered wholly untenable by an admitted and unquestion- 
able usage of language in our Prayer Book. Indeed the 
very service in which this statement occurs contains on 
the face of it some peculiar statements, which cannot be 
understood literally. A person, who is called a sponsor, 
declares that he believes all the articles of the Christian 
faith, renounces the world and the flesh, and desires 
baptism, in the name of the child going to be baptized. 
In the first book of King Edward these statements were 
put into the infant’s own mouth, which was altered into 
the present form in the second book; but the distinction 
is unimportant, for under either form a literal statement 
is made which is not intended to be understood literally ; 


Cuap.Il.] Zhe Infant Baptismal Service. 239 


for nobody imagines that a really vicarious act is performed 
in the sponsor’s belief, renunciation, and desire for 
baptism, in the name of the child, inasmuch as no one 
person can really believe or desire in the stead of another. 
When, therefore, following this series of literal state- 
ments, which are not intended to be understood literally, 
and in obvious connexion with them, another statement 
comes, viz. the one now in question, it is evident that the 
latter does not stand on the same ground, with regard to 
the necessity of understanding it literally, on which it 
would if we met it in another situation. It is true these 
sponsorial statements are not essential to the rite, and do 
not occur in the private service; but they do occur in 
this service, and stamp the office in which they do occur 
as a kind of document which admits of statements which ~ 
are literal in form, but not intended to be understood 
hterally. 

Again, this very service contains a verbally absolute 
statement of the future salvation of the infant. Nobody 
can be required to believe without doubt any particular 
fact, unless it is true ; and, therefore, to tell us to “ doubt 
not but earnestly believe that God will give unto him 
[this infant] the blessing of eternal life, and make him 
partaker of His everlasting kingdom,” is to assert the 
fact of the future salvation of the infant. But this 
assertion cannot possibly be understood literally, and is 
therefore another proof contained within this very service 
of the character of a baptismal service, viz. that it admits 
of a class of statements which are literal in form, but 
hypothetical in meaning. 

But we have only to turn over a page in the Prayer 
Book to see that this argument, from the simple literalness 
of the statement, is at any rate incorrect. We have the 
very same statement, which is used in the Infant Baptismal 
Service, used in the Adult Baptismal Service; and in the 


240 The Infant Baptismal Service. [Part II. 


latter service it is used by the confession of all parties in 
an hypothetical sense. We may certainly dismiss this 
ground then of the simple literalness of the statement as 
at once insufficient, because to the argument that a literal 
meaning must be given to the statement in the Infant 
Baptismal Service because it is a literal statement, it is at 
once a full and decisive reply to produce the very same 
literal statement as used in another service hypothetically. 

It is alleged, indeed, on the strength of the expression, 
“truly repenting and coming unto Him by faith,” which 
is applied to the adult who comes to be baptized, that 
the evidence of an hypothetical meaning in his case is 
ancorporated in the service, which it is said not to be in the 
case of the infant. But, even if the meaning of this 
statement in the Adult Service is shown by evidence in 
the very service to be hypothetical, that cannot alter the 
fact that it 1s hypothetical, which is all that has been 
observed. Jf the above expressions, indeed, in the Adult 
Service are to be considered as such internal evidence of 
such a meaning in that service, the sponsorial statements 
might be appealed to as affording something like the same 
internal evidence in the Infant Service ; for the infant is 
certainly supposed in these statements to believe and 
renounce the world in the person of his sponsor, as the 
adult is in the other statement supposed to repent and 
believe in his own person. But, without entering into 
any comparison of this kind, it is enough to say that the 
statement in the Adult Service, that the aduit just baptized 
is regenerate, is undoubtedly a literal statement with an 
hypothetical meaning; and that this fact shows beyond 
dispute that the statement in the Infant Service that the 
infant is regenerate has not a literal meaning, because it 
is a literal statement. 

It is an instance of the inaccuracy of the reasoning 
which has been employed on this question that some 








Cap. Il.) Zhe Infant Baptismal Service. 241 


writers have appealed to the posteriority of the date of 
the Adult Service, as an answer to the above argument, 
on the principle that nothing in a service of a later date 
can argumentatively affect a service of a prior date.’ As 
if the question of date were of any relevance in deciding 
the simple fact of the existence of a certain kind of state- 
ment in our Prayer Book! The Adult Baptismal Service 
is a part of our Prayer Book, whatever be the date of its 
insertion, and a statement in it is a statement in our 
Prayer Book ; and this statement is by the confession of 
all parties a literal statement intended to be understood 
hypothetically. If it was not inserted in our Prayer 
Book before 1662, that only shows that, it devolving 
upon the Church at that time to construct a new bap- 
tismal service, she availed herself of the hypothetical 
principle in constructing it, and introduced an additional 
statement into our Prayer Book founded upon this prin- 
ciple. In doing which, indeed, she only followed ancient 
precedent; all the ancient baptismal offices making the 
same literal statement, mtended to be understood hypo- 
thetically, over the baptized adult. 

The Gorham Judgment drew attention to this charac- 
teristic of services as distinguished from dogmatic formu- 
laries or articles, and to its plain and immediate bearing 
upon the point in controversy. To the argument from 
the literalness of the statement in the baptismal office, 
the judges replied that, however correct it would have 
been had the statement been made in the Articles, literal 
statements were not necessarily to be interpreted literally 
in Church services. They said that we must take into 
consideration the place of the statement, the class of 
document in which it occurred, as well as the statement 
itself. The same distinction, indeed, holds good in ordi- 


5 Mr. Harold Browne’s ‘‘ Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,” 
p- 668. ‘ Revision of the Liturgy,” by John C. Fisher, p. 436. 


R 


242 The Infant Baptismal Service. [Part II. 


nary literature, for it would make all the difference often 
in the obligation to the literal interpretation of a state- 
ment, whether the latter occurred in an oration or in a 
history. 

I will leave this first part of the argument then with 
two remarks. The first is, that if the Church intended 
this statement as a dogmatic statement to enforce the 
doctrine of the regeneration of all infants in baptism, she 
has made an unaccountable choice of the place where she 
has introduced it. Had this statement appeared in the 
Articles, or had it appeared as an independent and de- 
tached statement, it would have been necessarily inter- 
preted according to the rules by which we interpret 
Articles, and by which we interpret independent and 
isolated statements; and in neither of these situations 
does the principle of hypothetical interpretation come in. 
But she has inserted it in a service, in the regular order 
of that service, and as part and parcel of it. She has 
therefore deliberately not introduced it in a situation in 
which literal construction is necessary, and just intro- 
duced it in a situation in which hypothetical construction 
is admissible. What reason can be assigned for such an 
arrangement as this? Why, when the whole subject of 
baptism is before her in the T'wenty-seventh Article, does 
she not make the statement then instead of confining her- 
self to the assertion, which is the only one she makes 
about infant baptism specially—that “the baptism of 
young children is in any wise to be retained in the 
Church ?”’ 

The other remark is, that though the argument from 
the Baptismal Service is not yet fully disposed of, a very 
important part of itis. It is not, I think, any misrepre- 
sentation to say, that though particular persons have 
gone more critically into the question, the popular argu- 
ment of the side opposed to the Gorham Judgment has 








Cuav.II.] Zhe Infant Baptismal Service. 243 


been the broad, simple, and downright one that a literal 
statement must have a literal meaning; that this has 
been the great working argument in the whole contro- 
versy, the great instrument of persuasion, and basis of 
confidence. What I observe then is, that this argument 
is refuted not certainly by any subtle or elaborate ex- 
planation, but by the simple process of turning over a 
page in the Prayer Book, on the other side of which is 
seen this same literal statement, used by the confession 
of all parties in an hypothetical sense. 

TI. It is urged, however, that the argument does not 
rest here, because, though that kind of statement which 
is literal in form but not in meaning is admitted into 
Church services, we are not therefore at liberty to set 
down any statement that we meet with in a Church 
Service as a statement of this kind, and to give it an 
hypothetical construction; but that, in addition to the 
general fact of the admissibility of such a class of state- 
ments into Church services, some further reason is needed 
to justify this construction in the particular case. 

This further reason then is asserted to be the necessity 
of such a construction—that the hypothetical interpre- 
tation is necessary in the particular case, and the literal 
one impossible.’ And on this principle a distinction is 
drawn between the same statement, as occurring in the 
Adult, and as occurring in the Infant Baptismal Service ; 
because it is alleged that repentance and faith being by 
universal admission conditions of regeneration in the case 
ot adults, and conditions of which we do not know 
whether they are fulfilled or not, this statement cannot 
be anything but hypothetical in the case of adults ; 
whereas, the regeneration of infants being without con- 
ditions, the reason which justifies this construction in the 


® Davison’s Remains, p. 294. 
' BR 2 


244 The Infant Baptismal Service. [Part UI. 


case of adults does not exist in the case of the infant to 
supply this justification. 

When this distinction is made then between the state- 
ment as occurring in the Infant Baptismal Service, and 
the same statement as occurring in the Adult Service, 
viz. that there are conditions of unknown fulfilment in 
the case of adults which do not exist in the case of 
infants; I observe, first, that this is a very different 
ground, in respect of pretensions to be obvious, palpable, 
and self-evident, from the ground which has been popu- 
larly used in this controversy; for, in the place of an 
universal claim for the literal interpretation of literal 
statements, we have on this ground only a distinction 
between one case for hypothetical interpretation and 
another. But, what is much more important, I observe 
next that this distinction does not in truth at all meet 
the case; and for this simple reason, that it assumes to 
begin with the ultimate and fundamental point im dispute, 
viz. that the regeneration of infants 2s without conditions. 
One school indeed in the Church asserts this, but another 
denies it.? It is true that the condition of faith and 
repentance in act is an impossible one in the case of 
infants; but there still remain conditions which are as- 
serted by one whole section of the Church to attach to 
the regeneration of infants; and conditions of such a 
nature that we cannot tell at the time whether they are 
fulfilled or not. It is the doctrine of one school that the 
infant must like the adult have faith, as the condition of 
his receiving, while an infant, the grace of baptism; that 
is to say, that he must have had a seminal faith, or the 
seed of a future faith, implanted in him by Divine grace 
before his baptism, as the condition of his being regene- 
rated at baptism. This is what is called the doctrine of 


7 Part I. Chapter ii. and Note 28. 


Cuap. Il.] Zhe [Infant Baptismal Service. 245 


“ prevenient grace,” which is the application to infant 
baptism of the law of adult baptism. It is admitted on 
all sides that prevenient grace is necessary for the adult’s 
regeneration at baptism, being necessary in order to 
enable him to have faith, which is the condition of his 
regeneration. One school maintains that the same pre- 
venient grace is necessary for the regeneration of the 
infant at baptism as well, and for the same reason, viz. 
for the implanting faith in him. But this is a condition 
of unknown fulfilment, because we cannot tell whether an 
- infant has had this seminal faith implanted in him or not. 
The Calvinist even adds to this condition, that the seminal 
faith thus implanted should be indefectible: he makes 
election the necessary condition of regeneration, and 
allows no one to be regenerate who will not finally per- 
severe. He adds, therefore, another condition of un- 
known fulfilment, for we cannot tell whether the infant 
brought to the font is or is not one of the elect, and will 
or will not finally persevere. Such being the state of the 
case then, those who maintain that the regeneration of 
infants is accompanied by conditions of unknown fulfil- 
ment, say that the same reason which obliges them to 
understand this statement hypothetically as made respect- 
ing adults, obliges them to understand it hypothetically 
as made respecting infants.® 


8 IT have only taken in this argument one of two alternatives in- 
volved in the doctrine of the conditional regeneration of infants, 
viz. that of their conditional present regeneration, while infants. 
There is another alternative, viz. the futwre regeneration of the 
infant, upon conditions, when he is grown up; which I have 
omitted, because it might be objected that the principle of hypo- 
thetical construction requires at any rate a basis of present fact ; 
that what we now suppose of all, is now literally true of some. 
“ What [ havealways been struck with,” says Lord Lyttelton, “is, 
that whenever these reasoners give any definition whatever or state- 
ment of regeneration, it is one which by the nature of things is 


246 The Infant Baptismal Service. {| Parr II. 


What is there to be said then in answer to this claim? 
Can it be shown that the Church anywhere prohibits 
this doctrine of the conditional regeneration of infants ? 
It cannot: she is neutral and silent upon this point. 
One baptismal scheme puts infants upon a different 
ground, with respect to baptism, from that of adults; 
another baptismal scheme puts both upon the same 
ground. One baptismal scheme makes the infantine 
state in the Infant equivalent to faith in the Adult; 
another requires a previous implantation of faith in the 
Infant, as in the Adult, in order to his being regenerate 
while an infant. One scheme, in short, is that of un- 
conditional infant regeneration, the other of conditional. 
But our Church lays down nothing upon this question, 
and allows by her silence her ministers to adopt either of 
the two schemes which appears to them most reasonable. 
She leaves even the full Calvinistic conditions of rege- 
neration untouched, maintaining at the very least a neutral 
ground upon the general Calvinistic question; and in 
particular nowhere saying that regeneration is not con- 
ditional upon election, or that it is not conditional upon 


impossible and inapplicable to any infant; from which inevitably 
follows not the hypothetical doctrine, but the result that in no case 
can the words of the service be actually true; in no case can an 
infant be regenerate.” (Tract on Infant Baptism, p.11.) With- 
out entering therefore into the question whether the basis of fact 
which is necessary in supposition may not be supplied by future 
fact, as well as by present, I have only here taken the case of 
present fact, and have argued upon the doctrine of those who hold 
a present regeneration of infants, while infants, but that only con- 
ditionally ; which is a position which has been from the Reforma- 
tion to the present day largely held in the school which maintains 
the conditional regeneration of infants (see Chapter vii.); and 
which was the most prominent side of that doctrine in the language 
of Mr. Gorham, and evoked the conspicuous and notable phrase of 
“‘ prevenient grace.” 


Cuap.Il.] Zhe Infant Baptismal Service. 247 


final perseverance. The doctrine of the conditional re- 
generation of infants then is nowhere prohibited by the 
Church, but stands on a par with the other doctrine, as 
one of two alternatives between which the Church does 
not decide. And this being the case, the liberty to hold 
the doctrine carries with it the liberty to hold the con- 
comitant interpretation of this statement. ‘his state- 
ment, it must be remembered, is a statement in a Service, 
not in an Article; and as a statement in a Service it has 
to begin with a lability to an hypothetical interpretation 
which a statement in an Article has not. The Church 
then, in this state of the case, allows a doctrine which 
makes that interpretation here necessary: she therefore 
allows that interpretation. 

But it will be asked, Is not the statement in the Infant 
Baptismal Service itself a prohibition of the doctrine of 
the conditional regeneration of infants? The answer is, 
Certainly not. Because to assert it to be such a prohibi- 
tion would be to assume, to begin with, that the state- 
ment must necessarily be interpreted literally, which is 
the very point which has to be proved. ‘Taken hypothe- 
tically, this statement is no prohibition at all of the doc- 
trine of the conditional regeneration of infants, but can 
be accepted quite consistently with it. Unless we go 
back again then to the old disproved ground that a 
literal statement must have a literal meaning, we are 
debarred from adducing this statement as any prohibi- 
tion of the doctrine of the conditional regeneration of 
infants. Indeed, the statement in the Infant Baptismal 
Service is no more of itself opposed to the doctrine of 
the conditional regeneration of infants, than the state- 
ment in the Adult Service is opposed to the doctrine of 
the conditional regeneration of adults. 

The Church’s admitted toleration of Calvinism again is 
met by saying that all Calvinists do not deny the uncon- 


248 The Infant Baptismal Service. | Part IL. 





ditional regeneration of infants.° But whether or not 
there exists an exceptional Calvinism (which I have no- 
where come across) which admits this doctrine, the ques- 
tion is whether the Church does not tolerate that ordi- 
nary Calvinism which denies it. If any one maintains 
that she does not, will he point out the prohibitory pas- 
sage in our formularies ? 

It is objected again that the hypothetical ground can 
only apply to adults and not to infants, because “ cha- 
ritable supposition ”’ can only apply “ to cases of capable 
and responsible agents ; in relation to whom some gift or 
promise of God is referred to, which is known from 
Scripture to be conditional wpon some act of their own.””' 
This objection, however, is met by simply dropping the 
word “ charitable,” the omission of which will not affect 
the argument. A Calvinist can plainly make the supposition 
that an infant is one of the elect ; whether this 1s a cha- 
ritable supposition or not is altogether immaterial, though 
it would be difficult to say that the supposition that an 
infant would finally persevere was not a charitable sup- 
position. 3 

The liberty then to hold the doctrine of the condi- 
tional regeneration of infants being clear and evident, in 
the order of reason upon conditional follows hypothetical ; 
and the right to hold the doctrine includes the right to 
give the interpretation. 

The argument is the same if, in the place of thet con- 


9 “Tt is afact beyond dispute,” says Archdeacon Dodgson, “ that 
men holding the Calvinistic doctrine of absolute decrees, have also 
held the universality of regeneration in infant baptism.” I have 
looked in vain for this fact. Ward and Davenant held a “regenera- 
tio sacramentalis”’ of all infants in baptism, but not a true rege- 
neration. They were very particular in saying that they did not 
use the word in this universal application in its true sense. See 
Chapter xi. Part I. 

1 Archdeacon Dodgson’s “ Controversy of Faith,” p. 70. 


Cuap. II.] Zhe [Infant Baptismal Service. 249 


ditions of regeneration, we put the sense of the term 
“regenerate.” When we come to this statement in the 
Infant Baptismal Service, an immediate natural obstacle 
to the literal construction of it meets us in the very sense 
of the term “regenerate,” or “born of God.’? For this 
term in its true and Scriptural sense implies actual good- 
ness.2- But are all infants made actually good in bap- 
tism? This is contrary to plain experience.? Without 
assuming, however, this as the Scriptural sense of the 
term “‘ regenerate,” the sense of regeneration still stands 
on the same ground on which the conditions of regenera- 
tion stood just now, and with the same results. The 
Church nowhere defines the sense of this term: she 
therefore, at any rate, leaves it open to the sense of 
actual goodness. She even leaves it open to the Cal- 
vinistic sense of indefectible goodness, i. e. that cannot be 
fallen away from totally or finally; and leaving it open 
to that sense which involves the hypothetical construc- 
tion of this statement, she allows that hypothetical con- 
struction. 

One distinction must indeed be admitted between the 
Infant and Adult Services as cases for hypothetical mter- 
pretation, viz. that in the one case the interpretation is a 
universal one, in the other not. But this is notarelevant 
distinction here, because, in order to found a simple right 
or liberty to hold a particular interpretation, it is not 
necessary that that interpretation should be held by 
everybody. The whole Church interprets the statement 
of the Adult’s regeneration hypothetically. Why? Be- 
cause the whole Church holds that the regeneration of 
adults is conditional. A portion of the Church interprets 
the statement of the Infant’s regeneration hypothetically. 
Why? Because a portion holds that the regeneration of 


2 Part I. Chapter v. 3 Part I. Chapter x. 


250 Lhe Infant Baptismal Service. [Part II. 


infants is conditional. If the doctrine of the conditional 
regeneration of infants then is not prohibited, those who 
hold it, whatever proportion of the Church they may be, 
have as much right to interpret the statement hypotheti- 
cally in the case of infants, as the whole Church has to 
do so in the case of adults.* 

The ground on which some cases of hypothetical inter- 
pretation rest is unquestionably a ground in which there 
is universal agreement; the literal interpretation being 
opposed to something which is universally admitted, 
whether fact of common sense or article of belief: The 
implicit statement in the Prayer Book, that the reign- 
ing sovereign is always a “religious and gracious” 
person, would, literally interpreted, contradict a fact of 
experience. ‘The statement in every case of the regene- 
ration of the adult would, literally interpreted, be opposed 
to a universally admitted doctrine, viz. that the regenera- 
tion of the adult is conditional upon faith and repentance. 
But it would be an arbitrary and untenable restriction of 
the right and use of hypothetical interpretation to confine 
it to cases in which there was universal agreement. 
Because, even if the necessity for such an interpretation 
arises not from any universally admitted fact or truth, 
but from the tenet or doctrine of a school; still, if the 
Church allows the doctrine in consequence of which the 
interpretation is necessary, she allows the interpretation. 

The argument for the necessity of the interpretation 
of the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service has thus 
broken down in both of the two stages into which it is 
divided. As a broad and downright argument, that a 
literal statement must have a literal meaning, 1b was 
refuted by the obvious facts of the Prayer Book. As 
an argument which distinguishes between Infants and 


4 Note 29. 


Cuar.Il.] Zhe [Infant Baptismal Service. 251 








Adults, on the ground of conditions, it has given way 
because it assumes, without any right, the important 
point that the regeneration of infants is without 
conditions. 

The truth is then, this statement in the Infant Baptis- 
mal Service has not been properly understood with 
respect to its place in our formularies, and has been in 
consequence incorrectly estimated for argumentative pur- 
poses. Because it is in form literal, it has been taken 
simply as a dogmatic statement, and been relied upon as 
such ; and exactly the same force has been given to it as 
if it had been made in one of the Thirty-nine Articles. 
No difference has been acknowledged between a situation 
in a service and a situation in a formulary of faith. It 
has been appealed to therefore as, without need of further 
inquiry, containing its own evidence of a_ necessarily 
literal meaning belonging to it. It has been conse- 
quently taken as of itself deciding the doctrine of our 
Church on this question. But this whole estimate of this 
statement is refuted by an appeal to the simplest liturgical 
facts. This statement, in the place in which it stands, is 
of itself open either to a literal or an hypothetical inter- 
pretation. This statement, therefore, does not interpret 
the general teaching of the Church, but, on the contrary, 
the general teaching of the Church must interpret this 
statement. Does the Church pronounce that infant 
regeneration in baptism is unconditional? Then she 
imposes the literal interpretation of this statement. 
Does she pronounce that it is conditional? Then she 
imposes the hypothetical interpretation of it. Does she 
allow us to hold either view? Then she allows us to 
interpret this statement either way. 


CHAPTER III 
THE CATECHISM 


THE same argument which decides the interpretation of 
the Baptismal Service decides also the interpretation of 
the Catechism. The definition of the grace of baptism in 
the latter part of the Catechism does not determine any- 
thing as to the recipients of that grace, or therefore as to 
all infants receiving it. But in the first part of the 
Catechism, there is a statement, put into every child’s 
mouth, that “he was made in baptism a child of God.”? 
Here then is undoubtedly a literal statement that the 
child was regenerate in baptism, and the only question is 
whether a literal meaning is necessary. 

To what class of documents then does the Catechism 
belong? Does it belong to the class which admits of 
hypothetical statements (i.e. in form literal, but with an 


1 With reference to another statement : ‘“‘ Who redeemed me and 
all mankind :” it must be observed that this redemption does not 
involve the bestowal of grace, inasmuch as all mankind are not 
even converted to Christianity, or brought within the Christian 
covenant. Calvinists thus admit the doctrine of universal redemp- 
tion. ‘‘In the new law Christ hath truly given Himself with a 
conditional pardon, justification, and conditional rights of salvation 
to all men in the world without exception .... Elect and non-elect 
therefore have an equal right to Christ till believing difference 
them .... But though Christ died equally for all in the aforesaid 
law sense,as He satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving 
Himself to all alike in the conditional covenant, yet He never pro- 
perly intended or purposed the actual justification or saving of all.” 
Baxter on Universal Redemption, pp. 55, 58, 63. 


The Catechism. pane 


hypothetical meaning) or not? If it does, then all the 
argument of the last chapter applies to this statement in 
it, and need not be repeated. 

A distinction has been drawn then between a Catechism 
and a Service which would, if true, prevent the argument 
which was applied in the last chapter to the Service, from 
being applicable to the Catechism. For, it is said, “a 
Catechism is not at any rate, whatever a Service may be, 
a document which admits of statements to be taken in 
an hypothetical meaning. A Catechism is a formulary 
drawn up for the purpose of instruction, and for teaching 
the child what are the truths and doctrines of Christianity, 
and therefore all the statements made in a Catechism 
must be statements of actual truths, admitting in the 
nature of the case only of a literal meaning.” If this 
account then of the nature and character of a Catechism 
as a Church formulary is correct, then that characteristic 
which formed the basis of the argument relating to the 
Baptismal Service, is wanting in the Catechism, and 
therefore the conclusion which was arrived at with 
respect to the Service, would not apply to the Catechism. 
But it will be found, I think, upon examination that this 
account of the character and nature of a Catechism, and 
the class of document to which it belongs, is not correct; 
but that on the contrary a Catechism is a kind of formu- 
lary which admits of presumptive statements, i.e. that 
are literal in form, but hypothetical in meaning. 

It must be observed then that though a Catechism is a 
formulary of instruction, and is drawn up for the purpose 
of teaching doctrinal truth, it is a formulary of a parti- 
cular structure, and is made upon a particular plan and 
arrangement, viz. that of question and answer. A dog- 
matic formulary is simply a series of statements, standing 
by themselves, without the introduction of any person- 
ages in the shape of catechist and child, or machinery in 


254 The Catechism. [Pare tt 


the shape of question and answer to elicit these state- 
ments. Buta Catechism is a departure from the structure 
of a dogmatic formulary, in this respect, that it introduces 
this personal machinery with the alternation of question 
and answer. And this being the plan of the formulary, 
we find in the next place that this plan leads to a result 
which bears immediately upon the question before us. 
The child, being introduced, is presumed to be in the 
spiritual condition in which a Christian child ought to be, 
and to have the wishes, aims, and resolutions proper to 
his calling. Thus when he is asked, “ Dost thou not 
think that thou art bound to believe and to do as they 
[the godfathers and godmothers] have promised for 
thee?” he answers, “ Yes, verily, and by God’s help so 
Twill; and I heartily thank our heavenly Father that He 
hath called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus 
Christ our Saviour. And I pray unto God to give me 
His grace, that I may continue in the same unto my life’s 
end.” Here is a set of statements put into the child’s 
mouth, by which he is made to declare that he intends to 
believe and to do as his godfathers and godmothers have 
promised for him, that he thanks his heavenly Father for 
spiritual blessings already received, and prays to Him that 
those blessings may be continued. ‘These are literal 
statements made in one of the child’s answers in the 
Catechism, respecting the religious intentions, wishes, 
and heartfelt thankfulness of the child. But it cannot 
be supposed that they have a literal meaning, and are 
intended to assert categorically that every child who is 
catechized has these intentions, wishes, and feelings of 
thankfulness. They are obviously put into the child’s 
mouth upon the presumptive principle, because it is 
assumed that he is in the spiritual condition of mind in 
which a Christian child ought to be, and they are 
intended to be and must be understood hypothetically. 


Cuap. IIT. |] The Catechism. 255 


And the same interpretation must be applied to 
another statement, not of a parenthetical kind like the 
last one, but relating to an important and fundamental 
doctrine, that of the sanctifying influence of the Holy 
Spirit. The answer in which the child asserts the sanc- 
tifying influence of the Holy Spirit, states that doctrinal 
truth in such a way, and in such a form, as to include 
the child himself in the number of those who are sancti- 
fied by this influence, that is to say,among the sanctified 
and the elect—“ Who san ctifieth me and all the elect people 
of God.”’ By saying this the child was made by the framers 
of our Catechism to include himself among the elect, who 
will finally be saved ;—a statement which evidently could 
not be understood otherwise than hypothetically. 

Considerable controversy has indeed arisen about the 
meaning of this statement, that is to say, about the mean- 
ing of the term “elect’’ in it; many maintaining that 
the term “elect”? here does not mean elect to eternal 
life, but only chosen for admission into the Visible 
Church, elect to Christian privileges and means of grace.’ 


2 When our Lord says that “ God shall send His angels, and 
they shall gather together His elect from the four winds” (Matt. 
xxiv. 31); and when He asks whether “God shall not avenge His 
own elect”’ (Luke xvi. 7); and when He says again of a certain 
season of terrible trial, that “ there shall arise false Christs and false 
prophets who, if it were possible, shall deceive the very elect,’’ and 
that “except those days should be shortened there should no flesh 
be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days ‘shall be shortened ” 
(Matt. xxiv. 24, 22); and when St. Paul asks “ Who shall lay any- 
thing to the charge of God’s elect” (Rom. viii. 33); and when St. 
Peter writes to the “elect according to the foreknowledge of God 
the Father unto obedience ” (1 Pet. i. 2); the elect who in these 
passages are avenged by God, and are guarded against the possi- 
bility of deception, and against whom the accuser is challenged to 
prove anything, and who are at the end of the world gathered by 
the holy angels from the four corners of the earth, are certainly 
God’s saints. What would be the force of the expression that “ if 


256 The Catechism. [Parr II. 





But the object of this inquiry being simply to ascertain 
the nature of a Catechism as a formulary, and whether it 
admits of a certain class of statements or not, all that we 
are concerned with in the present case, is a question of 
fact; viz. what was the current and received meaning of 
the term “elect” at the time of the construction of our 
Catechism? Weare not, for the purpose of this inquiry, 
at liberty to affix our own meaning to terms and state- 
ments in the Catechism, even though that meaning may 
be an allowed one, but we must take them in the meaning 
which they bore, according to general use and acceptation, 
at the time of their insertion in the Catechism. If this 
particular statement in our Catechism— Who sanctifieth 
me and all the elect people of God,” had at the time of 
its insertion—in consequence of the received meaning of 
the term “ elect’ at that time—such a meaning, as that 
it could only then by possibility be understood hypo- 
thetically, that is at once a proof of the nature of a 
Catechism as a formulary, viz. that it admits of that kind 
of statement which is literal in form, but in meaning 
hypothetical. 

What was the current and received meaning then of 
the term “elect” at the time of the construction of our 
Catechism? The answer is, that as understood by the 
whole Church of that day, and as employed by divines of 


it were possible they should deceive the very elect,” if the elect 
only meant those who were chosen for admission to Christian 
privileges, 1.e. all members of the Visible Church? Many of these 
are men whose deception need create no surprise at all, much less 
be an impossible supposition. It is true that whole Churches are 
addressed in the Epistles as elect, but this application of the term 
« elect” no more affects the meaning of the term “elect,” than the 
same application of the term “saint” affects the meaning of the 
term “saint:” “saint” being a holy man, and the “ elect ” mean- 
ing those who will be saved, although whole bodies are supposed to 
be “ saints” and “elect,’’ and addressed on that supposition. 


Crap. IIT. | The Catechism. 257 


both sides, Protestant and Roman, it had but one mean- 
ing, viz. those who would out of the whole mass of man- 
kind be ultimately saved. ‘‘ Election ”’ attended with an 
express qualification, such as “ outward election,” “ tem- 
poral election,’ was indeed employed to express an 
election into the Visible Church, and to the participation 
of the visible means of grace. But the term, “the 
elect,” simple and naked, in its general use and accepta- 
tion among divines, meant the elect to eternal life, those 
who would finally be saved. That was the sense of 
Melancthon,? Luther, Hrasmus, Calvin, Bellarmine, 
Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Nowell, Jewell, and Hooker.* 


3 Note 30. 

4 « Semper in hoc coetu sunt electi aliqui, i.e. heeredes extern 
vite, etiamsi simul his admixti sunt multi non sancti et non electi.”’ 
Melancthon, Op. iv. p. 158. “ Omnes salvandi electi sunt, et ita 
sunt electi ut agnoscant Filium et ad eum confugiant.” Ibid. 
p- 161. “In hac (visibili ecclesia) tantum sunt electi, propter quos 
et hic visibilis coetus a Deo colligitur et conservatur.” p. 159. 

“Propter electos ista vulgantur, ut isto modo humiliati et in 
nihilum redacti salvi fiant.” Luther, Op. t. ii. p. 431. 

“ Omnes electi certo salvantur.” Bellarmine, De Grat. et Lib. 
Arb. 1. ii. c. 10. 

“The penitent must conceive certain hope and faith that God 
will forgive him his sins, and repute him justified and of the 
number of His elect children.” ‘ Institution of a Christian Man.” 
“The book lately devised by me [Cranmer] and other Bishops of 
this realm.” Strype’s Cranmer, vol. i. p. 73. 

“Tn all ages God hath had His own manner after His unsearch- 
able wisdom to use His elect, sometimes to deliver them and to 
keep them safe, and sometimes to suffer them to drink of Christ’s 
cup, that is, to feel the smart and to feel the whip..... Here He 
doth but respite them to another time, and leaveth them in danger 
to fall in like peril again: there He maketh them perfect, to be 
without pain or peril for evermore.” Ridley, Parker Soc. Ed. 


p. 70. 
All the elect shall be gathered to Him, and there shall they see 


the judgment; but they themselves shall not be judged, but shall 
be like as judges with them..... No heart can comprehend the 
8 


258 The Catechism. [Parr IT. 


It was the sense of the Thirty-nine Articles, and of the 
Confession of Trent.2 Nor even did Arminius and the 


great felicity that God hath prepared for His elect.” Latimer, 
Serm. xl. 

“Tis éykadéoet KaTa ek\exT@v Tov Ocov; i.e. quis accusabit aut 
quis crimen intendet adversus electos Dei... Sensus Pauli mani- 
festus est neminem ausurum criminari eos quos Deus non solum 
vocavit, sed etiam elegit.” Hrasmi Annotationes, p. 276. 

“ God’s election is sure for ever. The Lord knoweth them who 
are His... you shall not fall for ever, you shall not perish.... 
But how may we see thiselection P Or how may we feel it? The 
Apostle saith ‘through sanctification and the faith of the truth.’” 
Jewell on 2 Thess. 1. 13. 

“Cur Sanctus (Sanctus Spiritus) appellatur? Non tantum ob 
suam ipsius sanctitatem, sed quod per eum electi Dei et membra 
Christi sancta efficiuntur... Qui sunt in fide firmi, stabiles atque 
constantes, hi electi atque designati et preedestinati erant ad hance 
tantam felicitatem ante posita mundi fundamenta.”’ Nowell’s 
Catechism, pp. 52, 53. 

“ Perpetuity of inward grace belongeth unto none but eternally 
foreseen elect .... Such is that grace which the elect find.” 
Hooker, vol. ii. p. 750. 

“Certe nemo unquam dixerit (credo) fidem in electis finaliter 
excidere.” Bp. Andrewes on Lambeth Articles. 

“The reward of the elect and the punishment of the reprobate 
becomes the means of God’s glory in regard that, God having pro- 
posed a law .... the one have observed it, the others not.” Thorn- 
dike, Covenant of Grace, b. 11. c. 26, § 3. 

«And ever remain in the number of Thy faithful and elect chil- 
dren.” Baptismal Service. “ Shortly accomplish the number of 
Thine elect.” Burial Service. 

5 “Nemo quamdiu in hac mortalitate vivitur, preesumere debet 
ut certo statuat se omnino esse in numero predestinatorum ... 
Nam nisi ex specialirevelatione scirinon potest quos Deus sibi ele- 
gerit.” Cone. Trident. Sess. vi.c. 12. ‘* (Deus) constanter decrevit 
eos, quos in Christo elegit ex hominum genere, a maledicto et exitio 
liberare atque, ut vasa in honorem ficta, per Christum ad eternam 
salutemadducere. Unde quitam preclaro Dei beneficio sunt donati 
... pertingunt ad sempiternam felicitatem.” Seventeenth Article. 
According to the grammatical construction of the Article, God has 
decreed to bring the elect—quos elegit—to eternal life: i.e. the 


Cuap. ITT. ] The Catechism. 259 


Remonstrants afterwards interfere with this sense; they 
differed from the Calvinists as to the cause, but they 
agreed with them as to the nature of election. Calvi 
said that the cause of election was the arbitrary will of 
God, Arminius, that it was the foreseen goodness of 
man; but both Calvin and Arminius meant by “ the 
elect,” those who were elected to eternal glory, those 
who would finally be saved. Calvinism and Arminianism 
concurred in one sense of the term “elect,” although 
upon one theory man’s righteousness preceded his elec- 
tion, on the other, man’s election preceded and was the 
cause of his righteousness. 

According to the correct and received meaning then 
of the term ‘‘ elect”? at the time of the construction of 
our Catechism, the statement—“ Who sanctifieth me and 
all the elect people of God,’’ could not have been under- 
stood then but as an hypothetical statement ; and there- 
fore the character of the Catechism as a formulary is 
ascertained in this respect, viz. that it admits of this 
kind of statement. We are met, however, now by a 
distinction which is drawn between “the elect ” and the 
“elect people of God,” which is the phrase used in the 
Catechism. It has been maintained that, though “the 
elect”? means those who are elected to eternal life, the 
“elect people of God’? means those who are elected to 
Christian privileges and means of grace. This distinction, 
however, has to begin with an arbitrary appearance ; for 
certainly any plain man would say that “the elect” and 
“the elect people of God”? meant the same thing: nor 
does it bear examination. The only reason which can be 
assigned why “the elect” should change its meaning 
when it becomes “ the elect people of God” is, that “ the 


elect will be saved. Nor does the Arminian deny this sense of the 

Article, but only assigns as the cause of this certain salvation of 

the elect, the foreseen goodness of the elect. Burneton Art. XVII. 
s 2 


260 The Catechism. [Parr II. 


elect”’ figure in the first phrase as a number of persons, 
or a simple plural; in the second, as one body, or a 
people. But this is no reason for a change of the mean- 
ing of the word “elect.” It has been always usual, and 
Scripture sets the example of this double point of view, 
to look upon the saints and servants of God in the world 
in two aspects, as a number of individuals, and as a holy 
body or community or people. There is a number of 
persons who are zealous of good works, and there is “a 
peculiar people zealous of good works.” ‘There is a rest 
laid up for every man of God, and “there remaineth a 
rest for the people of God.” There are those “ whom 
God did foreknow,” and there is “ His people whom He 
foreknew,” and did “ not cast away.” The men who are 
zealous of good works, those for whom a rest remaineth, 
and those who are foreknown, do not become different 
but remain the same persons, regarded as individuals and 
regarded as a people. The saints are the same persons, 
with the same character, whether considered as a number 
of individuals, or as united in the ‘‘Communion of 
Saints.’ 

Nor, in the same way, do the “elect”? become different 
persons with different characteristics when they are re- 
garded as “‘the elect people of God,” but are the same 
persons with the same characteristics, only viewed as a 
number of single persons in the one phrase, as a people 
or body in the other. St. Paul calls the same persons 
both “ the elect,” which is plural, and “ the election,” 7 
éxroy), Which is singular, or a unity ; and the “ glorious 
Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but 
holy and without blemish,’ must be the Church of the 
elect, or the elect considered as one body or Church. 
The ‘‘ Civitas Dei”? of Augustine is the society or body 


® Rom: x1, 7; 


Crap. IIT. |] The Catechism. 261 


of the elect, who are even now to the Divine eye separated 
from the world and form one spiritual community. “I 
divide,” he says, “the human race into two kinds; one 
of which lives according to man, the other according to 
God, and I mystically call them two cities—i.e. two 
human societies—of which one is predestined to reign 
eternally with God, the other to suffer eternal punishment 
with the devil.” 7 

But the language of contemporary theology shows 
beyond dispute that “the elect” and the “elect people 
of God” meant exactly the same thing, and that the only 
difference was one of aspect, whether the same persons 
were regarded as a body or as a number of individuals. 
The theology of the Reformation is full of the aspect of 
“the elect,”’ as one people, one society, one body in the 
eye of God; an aspect which was expressed by the 
“unum corpus electorum” of Calvin; the ‘‘ congregatio 
Christianorum et sanctorum hominum” of Luther; the 
“‘Hlecta Ecclesia,” the ‘‘ Hcclesia sanctorum,” the “ Popu- 
lus Spiritualis,” the ‘‘ Populus Dei Sanctus,” the “ Verus 
populus Dei renatus,” of Melancthon ; the “ Body mystical 
collective’ of Hooker; the “Invisible Church” of all 
Protestant divinity. 

“There exists for ever in the world,” says Luther, 
“this holy Christian multitude in which Christ is effica- 
cious. .. . This holy Christian Church, and holy Chris- 
tian people of God.”* “St. Paul,’ says Melancthon, 
“ distinguishes the elect Church from the other multitude 
which has the title and boasts its carnal propagation or 
ordinary succession of external government. St. Paul 
distinguishes the true Church from the false... He 
gives the sweet consolation that there shall always be a 
certain elect Church, Ecclesia Hlecta propter Filiwm ; and. 


# De Civ. Det, L xv.'c. 1. 
5 Note Vere Ecclesia. Op. tom. vii. pp. 148, 152. 


262 The Catechism. [Parr IT. 


that though the greater part will perish, a remnant or 
small part will be converted to God, . . . and this elect 
Church is justified, and shall be adorned with eternal 
glory.” °—“ This Church is alone called the body of 
Christ, which Christ renews, sanctifies, and rules by His 
Spirit, as Paul says, ‘And He gave Him to be head over 
all things to the Church, which is His body.’”* “The 
Church of Christ,” says the Seventh Article of the Con- 
fession of Augsburgh, “‘is properly (proprie) the congre- 
gation of the members of Christ, i.e. of holy men, who 
truly believe in and obey Christ, though in this life there 
are mixed with this congregation many evil men and 
hypocrites.” ‘After Christ,” says the Homily on the 
Nativity, “was once come down from heaven, and had 
taken our frail nature upon Him, He made all them that 
would believe Him truly and receive His word good trees 
and good ground, fruitful and pleasant branches, children 
of light, citizens of heaven, sheep of His fold, members 
of His body, heirs of His kingdom, His true friends and 
brethren, sweet and holy bread, the elect and chosen people 
of God.” “Let us trust,” says the Homily on the Pas- 
sion, “that Christ may receive us into His heavenly 
kingdom, and place us in the number of His elect and 
chosen people.” ‘The Church of Christ,” says Hooker, 
“which we properly term His body mystical, can be but 
one; neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any 
man, inasmuch as the parts thereof are some in heaven 
already with Christ, and the rest that are on earth (albeit 
their natural persons be visible) we do not discern under 
this property whereby they are truly and infallibly of that 
body. Only our minds by intellectual conceit are able to 
apprehend that such a real body there is; a body collec- 
tive, because it containeth a huge multitude—a body 
mystical, because the mystery of their conjunction is 


9 Op. tom. iv. pp. 162, 163, 154. 1 Op. tom. 1. p. 80. 


Cuap. IIT. ] The Catechism. 263 


removed from our sense. Whatsoever we read in Scrip- 
ture concerning the endless love and the saving mercy 
which God showeth towards His Church, the very proper 
subject thereof is this Church. Concerning this flock it 
is that our Lord and Saviour hath promised:—‘I give 
unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish ; 
neither shall any pluck them out of my hands.’ They 
who are of this society have such marks and notes of 
distinction from all others, as are not-object unto our 
sense; only unto God who seeth their hearts and under- 
standeth all their secret cogitations, unto Him they are 
clear and manifest.’’? ‘‘ The Church of the elect,” says 
Laud, “is in the Church of them that are called, and the 
invisible Church in the visible. That the invisible Church 
of the elect is in the visible is manifest out of St. Augus- 
tine: ‘Ipsa est Ecclesia que intra sagenam Dominicam 
cum malis piscibus natat.’”’* ‘The general or outward 
Church of God is visible,” says Jewell, “but the very 
true Church of God’s elect is invisible, and cannot be seen 
or discerned by man, but is only known to God alone.” * 
“The Church may be called holy,” says Bishop Pearson, 
“in regard the end of constituting a Church in God was 
for the purchasing a holy and precious people.” ° 

We find this aspect of “ the elect ’’—viz. as one people 
and one society—dominant in the Catechisms and Ex- 
positions of belief of that day. In the “ Institution of a 
Christian Man,” which was an exposition of the Christian 
faith, published by the authority of the Bishops in 1536, 
was called the Bishops’ Book, and was composed by a 
commission, of which Cranmer was the head; the person 
who makes the confession of his belief in the articles of 
the Christian faith is made to say: “I believe assuredly 
in my heart, and with my mouth I do profess and acknow- 


2 Hecl. Pol. b. ii. c. 1, § 2. 3 Conference with Fisher, sect. xxi. 
* Defence of Apology, c. iv. div. 2. 5 On Article IX. 


264 The Catechism. [Parr IT. 


ledge that there is and hath been, even from the beginning 
of the world, and so shall endure and continue for ever, 
one certain number, society, communion of the elect and 
faithful people of God; of which number our Saviour 
Jesus Christ is the only Head and Governor; and the 
members of the same be all those holy saints which be 
now in heaven, and also all the faithful people of God 
which be now on life, or that ever heretofore have lived, 
or shall live here in this world, from the beginning to the 
end of the same, and be ordained for their true faith and 
obedience unto the will of God, to be saved and to enjoy 
everlasting life in heaven. And I believe assuredly that 
this congregation according as it is called in Scripture, 
so it is in very deed the city of heavenly Jerusalem, the 
mother of all the elect people of God, the only dove, and 
the only beloved of God, in perfect and everlasting charity, 
the holy Catholic Church. . . . And I believe and trust 
assuredly that I am one of the members of this Catholic 
Church, and that God of His own mercy hath not only 
chosen and called me thereunto by His Holy Spirit, and 
by the efficacy of His Word and Sacraments, and hath 
inserted and united me into this universal body or flock, 
and hath made me His son and inheritor of His kingdom ; 
but also that He shall, of His like goodness and by the 
operation of the Holy Ghost, justify me here in this 
world, and finally glorify me in heaven.” ° 

In this declaration, which is indeed only the short de- 
claration of the child in our own Catechism, ‘‘ Who sanc- 
tifieth me and all the elect people of God,” rhetorically 
drawn out and expanded; the phrase, ‘“ the elect people 
of God,” means exactly the same thing as the phrase, 
“the elect ;” i.e. they are those who will finally be saved. 
The phrase denotes the same number of individuals, only 
regarded as a society. We have the same aspect of “the 


6 Formularies of Faith. Hd. by Bishop Lloyd, pp. 52, 56. 


Cuap. ITI. ] The Catechism. 265 


elect”? in Nowell’s Catechism: ‘ Before the heaven and 
the earth were made God foreordained a most lovely king- 
dom and a most holy commonwealth, which the Apostles 
call the Church, or congregation. Into this common- 
wealth hath God enrolled an infinite multitude of men, who 
all follow Christ as their King; all obey His word, and 
commend themselves to His guardianship. ‘T’o this com- 
monwealth belong as many as truly fear, honour, and 
worship God, applying their minds to holy and pious 
living, placing all their hope and confidence in God, and 
expecting most certainly a blessed eternity. Whosoever 
are firm, stable, and constant in this faith, these are the 
elect and the sealed, predestined to this felicity before the 
foundation of the world, and having the Spirit of Christ 
for an inward witness to this election.” ‘“ And,’ proceeds 
the child, “I do most certainly assure myself that I my- 
self am, by the free gift of God in Christ, made a member 
of this blessed commonwealth.” In the Heidelberg Cate- 
chism, the child, in answer to the question, ‘‘ What dost 
thou believe concerning the Holy Catholic Church of 
Christ ?””? says,—“I believe that the Son of God doth, 
from the beginning to the end of this world, gather, 
defend, and preserve unto Himself, by His word and 
Spirit, out of the whole race of mankind, a company 
elected unto eternal life, and that I am a living member 
of that company, and shall so remain for ever.”’ The 
child is made to assert the same assurance in the Cologne 
Catechism, Bucer’s composition :—“ I believe that through 
His word and sacraments God will confirm and increase 
the same | sanctification] in me, so that I shall study con- 
tinually to sanctify His name, and to serve His congre- 
gation with all manner of good works, till He take me 
out of this world unto heavenly joys and the blessed 


7 Sylloge Confess. p. 373. 


266 The Catechism. [Parr IT. 


Resurrection.” * And the declaration respecting himself, 
and his own sanctification, and final salvation, is repeated 
by the professor of the Christian faith in the “ Institution 
of a Christian Man’’ :—“‘I do believe that I am so clearly 
rid of all the guilt of my said offences, and from the ever- 
lasting pain due to the same, that neither sin, nor death, 
nor hell shall be able or have any power to hurt me or to 
let me, but that after this transitory life I shall ascend 
into heaven, there to reign with my Saviour Christ per- 
petually in glory and felicity.” ® 

It must be observed that the aspect of the elect as one 
body, which prevails in these extracts, does not supersede 
the existence of another body, viz. the mixed or visible 
Church. There were divines, indeed, who refused the 
title or name of Church to any body but the Church of 
the elect ; but this was no necessary consequence of the 
aspect of the elect as a body, which, though a body and a 
society, was still planted by the general judgment of 
divines within another body, viz. the visible Church. 
The full recognition of the Church, as a visible body, was 
thus perfectly consistent with regarding the elect who 
were within that Church as a body; an inner society 
within an outward one, an invisible commonwealth within 
a visible one, a pure communion within a mixed one. 
Melancthon recognized a visible Church, which he called 
a “vera Hcclesia,” and a “ populus Dei,” but added, “ in 
quo Deus vere colligit coetwm cui dat remissionem pecca- 
torum, et justitiam, et salutem eternam.”? 

We have then full evidence that “ the elect” meant, in 
the general use and acceptation of the term at the time 
of the construction of our Catechism, those who would 
finally be saved ; and we have also very full evidence that 
the “elect people of God ”’ meant the same as “ the elect.” 


8 Offices, published by Hermann, Archbp. of Cologne, fol. 80. 
° Formularies of Faith, p. 35. + Tom, a, p. 019, 


Onap. III. The Catechism. ae 


But in this state of the case the conclusion is inevitable 
that the statement, “ Who sanctifieth me and all the elect 
people of God,” must, at the date of our Catechism, have 
been understood hypothetically. 

It is to be admitted, indeed, that, the term “ sitet 2 
being applied in the Epistles on the hypothetical prin- 
ciple to all the members of Christian Churches, this pre- 
sumptive application of the term has been converted into 
another sense of the term by one section of divines, with 
whom it means those elected to Christian privileges and 
a place in the visible Church; that the use of this latter 
as a secondary meaning of the term is to be seen occa- 
sionally in earlier writers of our Church ; and that a later 
school adopted and defended it as the true meaning of the 
term ; Bishop Tomline defining “ the predestinated and 
elect” as “ those to whom the Gospel was made known 
according to the foreseen purpose of God.”? It must be 
admitted, I say, that the term “ the elect” has contracted 
this gloss, and that this gloss has obtained a wide re- 
ception and a sanctioned place in our theology ; but when 
we are engaged in ascertaining the meaning of a par- 
ticular statement in the Catechism, as a criterion of the 
kind of formulary a Catechism is, and the sort of state- 
ments it admits of ; and when the meaning of that state- 
ment depends on the meaning of a particular term in it ; 
in this case, we are not at liberty to take a gloss upon 
that term, but we must take the term in its general use 
and acceptation at the time of the construction of the 
Catechism. And there is full evidence of what this general 
use and acceptation was; and that the term meant those 
who would finally be saved. 

The objection is raised indeed that, with this meaning 
of “ elect,” this assertion of the child in the Catechism 
becomes a most rash and presumptuous one, and the 


2 On Article XVII. 


268 The Catechism. Prat Ei 





authority of Jackson is cited, who says :—“ Can any man 
be persuaded that it was any part of our Church’s mean- 
ing to teach children, when they first make profession of 
their faith, to believe that they are of the number of the 
elect ; that is, of such as cannot finally perish? This were 
to teach them their faith backwards, and to seek the king- 
dom of heaven, not ascendendo but descendendo from it.” * 
Without wishing to detract, however, from the merits of 
Jackson, I must be allowed to say that, as a one-sided 
writer, he is not always a safe guide to trust to. It was 
open to him, as it is open to every one now, to criticize 
the propriety of putting such a statement into the mouth 
of a child, but such criticism cannot alter the facts of the 
case. It cannct alter the fact of what was the regular 
and received meaning of the term “elect” and “the 
elect people of God” at the time of the construction of 
our Catechism; or the fact that, with this meaning, a 
statement, which included the speaker among the elect 
people of God, was put into the mouth of the child in 
the Catechism; or the fact, which has appeared in the 
citations above made, that this statement of the child 
respecting himself runs through the Catechisms and 
similar formularies of that day. It is, however, not only 
a too rigid, but a wholly untrue interpretation of this 
statement to convert it, as Jackson does, into the serious 
and literal assertion of a fact. It was presumed in all 
these formularies that the child was a true Christian, and 
had all that appertains to one, sanctification and election 
included ; and, in accordance with this presumption, he 
was made to declare that he was thus sanctified and thus 
elect. 

We have then before us, first, a whole class of Pro- 
testant Catechisms, or formularies of that class, of about 
the same date as our own, and we are able to ascertain 


3 Commentary on Creed, b. xi. c. 17. 


Cuap, ITI. ] The Catechism. 269 


clearly enough from them what sort of a formulary a 
Catechism is, with respect to the particular point now 
under consideration. Because we find that these Cate- 
chisms contain statements which cannot possibly be un- 
derstood otherwise than hypothetically; viz. the child’s 
assertion of his own sanctification, future perseverance, 
and final salvation. And, secondly, with this general 
evidence before us of the character of a Catechism in 
this respect, we come to owr own Catechism, and find 
that our own is of this character too from plain internal 
evidence—the child’s assertion of his own pious resolu- 
tions, wishes, thankful feelings, sanctification, and lastly 
election. . 

The character of our Catechism on this head then being 
decided, viz. that it admits of statements literal in form 
but hypothetical in meaning, we come to the particular 
statement in it with which this treatise is concerned : 
“ Wherein I was made a child of God,” &c. This state- 
ment then, after the above proof of the character of a 
Catechism as a formulary, comes legitimately under the 
argument of the last chapter. Our Church lays down no 
specific doctrine of infant regeneration, and nowhere 
defines the meaning of the term, “ child of God.” But 
if the Church allows conditions of infant regeneration 
and the sense of actual goodness, and the sense of inde- 
fectible goodness for this term, she allows the hypotheti- 
cal construction of this statement, because the allowance 
of conditions and of the sense is, ipso facto, the allowance 
of the construction. 

Can it be denied that the Church, at any rate, allows 
the statement, “ Who sanctifieth me and all the elect 
people of God,” to be construed hypothetically? To 
deny this would be to deny to persons now the bare and 
simple right to understand the phrase, ‘the elect people 
of God,” in that sense which was, as a matter of fact, its 


270 The Catechism. 


regular and received sense at the date of the construction 
of our Catechism. But if this statement may be under- 
stood hypothetically, what valid reason can be given why 
the other also may not be ?* 


* In the “ Institution of a Christian Man,” “child of God” is 
synonymous with one of the elect. ‘I believe that lam God’s own 
son by adoption and grace, and the right inheritor of His kingdom 
....one of the members of His Catholic Church.” ‘ Which 
Church,” he adds, “is the society of the elect people of God, the 
saints which are now in heaven, and also be now on life.” For- 
mularies, pp. 31, 52, 56. 

Dr. John Mayer’s Exposition of the Church Catechism “ published 
by command ”’ in the earlier part of the sgventeenth century, while it 
allows every baptized child to be a ‘member of Christ and a child 
of God,” literally in a “sacramental” sense, yet in “the real and 
true sense” of those terms explains this whole statement hypo- 
thetically. “If it be further demanded, how can it be said of all 
baptized that they are members of Christ, I answer that our Church 
doth not usurp the gift of prophecy, to take upon her to discern 
which of her children belong to God’s unsearchable election, but 
in the judgment of charity embraceth them all, as God’s inheritance; 
and hereby teacheth every one of us so to believe of ourselves by 
faith, and of others by charity. St. Paul in his salutations styleth 
the whole visible Churches to whom he writes by the title of saints, 
and yet it is likely that by his extraordinary discerning spirit he 
could have differenced the goats of his flock from the sheep. How 
much more ought we, with our blessed mother the Church of 
England, at ali christenings to preswme that sacramental grace 
doth like a soul enquicken the body of the outward element, and 
receive those for our true fellow-members of Christ, who have 
been made partakers of the same laver of regeneration.” Dr. John 
Mayer’s Exposition of the Catechism, pp. 5—7. 


«. *CBAPTER EY 
RULE OF LITERAL INTERPRETATION CONSIDERED 


THE case which was proved in the two last chapters was 
that of a statement which had literally interpreted one 
meaning, but which turned out upon examination to be 
susceptible of another. ° 

It is, of course, to be admitted on one side that the 
literal meaning of this statement is its prima facie 
meaning :' indeed this is a truism; for by a prima facie 
meaning we understand that meaning which a statement 
has by the plain force of its grammatical construction, and 
which it carries to any person who has no other data 
beyond that for knowing its meaning. But while this 
admission must be made on the one side, the error on 
the other side lies in vastly overrating the weight of a 
prima facie meaning. For for a prima facie meaning, 
known and acknowledged, to be corrected upon examina- 
tion, is one of the commonest occurrences in language. 
Indeed, what is the prima facie meaning of the statement 
in the Adult Baptismal Service? To any one who had 
only its literal and grammatical sense to go by without a 
previous acquaintance with the doctrine of adult bap- 
tism,” this statement would mean simply what it says, 

1 Lord Macaulay’s expression (Hist. ii. p. 472) that “the words 
[of the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service] to all minds 
unsophisticated appear to assert,” &c., only affirms what every- 
body would allow, a prima facie meaning. 

2 It is alleged that the evidence of the hypothetical meaning of 
the statement in the Adult Service is incorporated in the service, 


272 Rule of Literal [Pann te 


i.e. state a positive fact. But we all set aside that literal 
meaning for an hypothetical. 

Generally speaking the literal meanings of statements 
are their trwe meanings, and are also the only meanings 
which they legitimately bear, because this clearness and 
unity is the general aim of language, and an aim in which 
it succeeds in the majority of cases. But there are large 
exceptions, and there are few things with which we are 
more familiar than the supplanting of a prima facie 
meaning by another which has the advantage of more 
knowledge and acquaintance with the facts of the case, 
whether the style of a writer, or the phraseology of a 
particular department of science or learning, or the con- 
struction of language generally. For there are over and 
above the former special class of reasons, reasons of a 
deeper kind, lying in the very nature and construction 
of human language as an instrument of expression, 
which often issue in prima facie meanings which 
have afterwards to be corrected; for instance, there 
is the necessity of compression, which produces the 
summary form of statement made without the mention 
of proper conditions, which are left to be supplied by the 
reader. 

In such revision and correction then of the sense of 
language it sometimes happens that the literal meaning 
of a statement is wholly set aside, and that another 
meaning which is not the literal one is substituted as the 
only true meaning. It would be tedious to quote exam- 


by virtue of the expressions in the exhortation—“ truly repenting 
and coming unto Him by faith.” But if such an inference is to 
be drawn from these expressions in the Adult Service, might not a 
like inference be drawn from the sponsorial statements in the 
Infant Service? The truth is, it is the doctrine of Adult Baptism 
which definitively settles the meaning of the statement in the 
Adult Service, and not any expressions in the service itself. 


Cuap. IV.] Luterpretation considered. 27% 





ples, but persons who are conversant with the usages of 
language will be able to recall many forms of expression 
and modes of statement which no rational man can un- 
derstand in their literal and grammatical sense. There 
are other cases again in which the literal meaning is not 
wholly set aside, but another meaning besides the literal 
one is found to be admissible. We arrive at a class of 
statements which admit of both interpretations, one 
being the best in one man’s opinion, the other in an- 
other’s, but both admitting of being held by reasonable 
and intelligent men, Thus the precepts in Scripture, 
** Resist not evil,” and “ Swear not at all,” admit both of 
a literal and a non-literal interpretation. Christians are 
at liberty to take such precepts in their literal sense, and 
many intelligent Christians do so interpret them ; but the 
great majority still set aside this literal sense and adopt 
the other. 

It is impossible to deny that the meaning in which the 
Nonjurors understood the Oath of Allegiance, abandoning 
all their offices in Church and State, and submitting them- 
selves to the greatest sacrifices for it, was the literal and 
prima facie meaning of that oath, and that the oath cer- 
tainly admitted of being taken in that meaning. The 
terms of it were plain and direct, viz. that the person 
taking it “would be true and faithful to the king and 
his heirs, and not know or hear of any ill or damage 
intended him, without defending him therefrom.” But 
although the literal meaning of this oath was so obvious, 
an immense majority, both in Church and State, includ- 
ing men who were as conscientious as the Nonjurors, did 
not so understand it. They admitted what was unques- 
tionable, that this was its literal meaning, but they denied 
that its literal meaning was the true one; urging that 
there was an unexpressed condition in the oath, viz. that 
the allegiance sworn in it only applied to the king so long 

7 


274 Rule of Literal [Part ks 


as he was king, so long as he was de facto the ruler and 
sovereign of the country.* 

Let us apply then this corrective principle, of such 
constant use in language generally, to the interpretation 
of the Prayer Book. In the first place, we find there 
cases of the former, or total kind of correction, in which 
the literal meaning is altogether set aside, and another or 
non-literal meaning put in its place as the true one. In 
the prayer for Parhament the literal meaning of the 
statement, implicitly made, that the reigning monarch is 
always “a religious and gracious person”’ is wholly set 
aside, and an hypothetical meaning put in its place. In 
the Burial Service, the statement that “it hath pleased 
Almighty God to take unto Himself the soul of our dear 
brother,” 4 undergoes the same total correction. In the 
form of Absolution for the Sick, the statement, “‘ I absolve 
thee from all thy sins,” undergoes the same: in the Adult 
Baptismal Service, the statement, ‘‘'These persons are 
regenerate,” undergoes the same. In all these cases what 
is prima facie a categorical assertion is determined not to 
be one. The literal meaning is a false meaning, the 
meaning which is not literal is the true one. 

From these cases of total correction then we come to 


3 Mr. Pitt insisted upon the literal meaning of the proviso 
attached to certain public stocks, that the interest due upon them 
“shall not be charged or chargeable with any rates, duties, or im- 
positions whatever.” This literal meaning, however, has been set 
aside by the legislature, and a non-literal meaning has been 
declared to be the true one, viz. that the stockholder is only secured 
from special taxes, not from taxes laid upon him in common with 
the whole community. 

* Jt is plainly incorrect to interpret this as being only the neutral 
statement that God has taken the soul of the departed from one 
world into another. It would be a shock to the common sense and 
religious feeling of anybody to suppose that a wicked man or an 
atheist could be our dear brother in Christ whose soul God had 
taken to Himself. 


Cuap. IV.] Lnterpretation considered. a5 





a case of partial correction ; that is, to a case in which the 
literal meaning is not wholly set aside as untenable, but 
in which another meaning besides the literal is found to 
be admissible. This is the characteristic of the statement 
in the Infant Baptismal Service. Some persons have no 
impediment in the way of understanding this statement 
literally, and therefore they do so understand it; others, 
however, have an impediment arising from the sense of 
the word “ regenerate,” which appearing to them to imply 
quite plainly in its Scriptural sense actual goodness, they 
cannot in consistency with facts adopt the literal meaning, 
which, upon their idea of regeneration, would be to say 
that all baptized infants had actual goodness implanted 
in them. Calvinists have the still greater impediment 
that regeneration in their sense implies indefectible 
goodness, or ultimate salvation. In this state of the case 
then that statement contracts, in accordance with this 
basis of opinion in the Church, a divided interpretation ; 
that is to say, its literal meaning not being supplanted, 
another or hypothetical meaning is found to be admissible. 
The interpretation of it depends upon the sense of the 
word regenerate, which in the one case does, in the other 
does not, allow of the acceptance of the statement in its 
literal sense ; but the Church is neutral upon this question 
of the sense of the term, nowhere defining regeneration. 
These two senses of the term therefore stand, in this 
silence of the Church, upon an equal footing; and, the 
sense of the term being open, the construction of the 
statement becomes open. 

When then the charge of dishonesty is brought against 
the hypothetical interpretation of this statement—for 
though the interpreter is through the improved tone of 
controversy excused personally, the interpretation is still 
set down by many as dishonest,—I remark as follows :— 

1. It is not enough to support the charge that this 

T 2 


276 Rule of Literal [Parr IT. 


interpretation is dishonest, to say simply and solely that 
it is not literal. So far all who are acquainted with the 
nature of language, its forms, usages, and constructions, 
must agree. All must see that this simple and summary 
ground is atany rate untenable ; because to maintain such 
a ground would bein truth to assert that in language the 
literal was always the true meaning, and the only true 
meaning ; and that there was no such case as that of a 
prima facie sense, which had to be corrected and sup- 
planted by another sense. But such a position as this 
would be in the teeth of the plainest facts. It is one 
thing then to guard against a dishonest and evasive inter- 
pretation, and another to impose an exorbitant and 
inordinate rule of literal interpretation. It is evident that 
in language the prima facie meaning is not the permanent 
and fixed property of the statement to which it belongs, 
but that it is a provisionary meaning, exposed to appeal 
and subject to revocation, upon proper grounds appear- 
ing: that when no such grounds appear it is of course not 
only the prima facie meaning, but also the true one; but 
that, when such grounds do arise, then it is set aside and 
the correction fixed in its place. 

Such being the state of the case upon the field of lan- 
guage generally, if controversy should have happened 
to have fastened upon some minds the idea that in the 
particular instance of the statement in the Infant Bap- 
tismal Service the prima facie meaning is‘as ‘such final, 
and that it isnot amenable to examination or open to 
revision, it must be said that this is not a natural but an 
artificial enforcement of literal interpretation. The natural 
rule is a qualified and limited one, in agreement with 
common sense and in accordance with the facts of lan- 
guage; but this would be an arbitrary and fictitious 
assumption—the creation of that pertinacity which is 
engendered by strife, and no fruit of common sense and 


Cuar. 1V.] JLuterpretation considered. 579 





nature. ‘This would be to give a supremacy to the literal 
principle in excess of its real rights. This statement is 
amenable to the same ordeal to which all other statements 
are subject, viz. that of examination, to see if the literal 
meaning of it is the true or the only true one. Do we 
not observe indeed, in the interpretation of ordinary 
books or documents, how weak a thing a prima facie 
meaning is, and how easily set aside? The particular use 
then, the extreme advantage taken of the prima facie 
meaning of the statement now in question, as if that one 
consideration settled everything, is plainly untenable ; 
and the pure and simple recurrence to that meaning, the 
repetition of the appeal to it, may give it a fanciful and a 
counterfeit strength in people’s minds, but is no answer 
to the claim which must be met at last; that this literal 
meaning admitted and confessed is still open to correction ; 
and that upon examination we may find, as we frequently 
do in ordinary reading, that another meaning of the 
statement is admissible. 

The criterion of an honest interpretation then is not the 
acceptance of the prima facie meaning of a statement as 
such,—a test which would be opposed to the whole exist- 
ing structure of language; implying, as it would, that 
language is a perfect instrument and a transparent medium 
of expression ; whereas it is a very complicated structure, 
which has accumulated all kinds of usages and artificial 
forms of construction in its growth. But the criterion 
of an honest interpretation is whether it is upon examina- 
tion admissible. We cannot touch bottom short of this, 
or farther narrow the ethics of interpretation. However, 
on abstract grounds, we might stand up for literal inter- 
pretation alone ; we find, as a matter of fact, that language 
assumes such forms as that we must apply another key 
to it; that to insist on the literal principle exclusively 
would be to confine ourselves to an instrument too narrow 


278 Rule of Literal [Parr IT. 


to deal with language as a whole, large portions of which 
it would ignore ; and that our definition of honesty in the 
interpretation of statements must square with the facts of 
language, which often compel a mode of construction, 
which is honest and yet not literal. 

Nor, if this general principle is conceded, can it be 
maintained that there is any special dishonesty in the 
principle of hypothetical interpretation. This is some- 
times spoken of indeed as if it were, in a special and 
peculiar way, opposed to plain dealing, and self-convicted 
of insincerity ; as if nobody could adopt it without tamper- 
ing with his conscience and inward sense of truth; as if 
it converted the statement in the Baptismal Service into 
a manifestly dishonest one, and lowered irremediably the 
character of the compilers of our Prayer Book, by con- 
verting them into hypocrites whose words and meanings 
did not coincide. But the plain answer to this is that 
hypothetical construction is a known form and usage, 
incorporated in language, and standing on exactly the 
same ground in respect of honesty on which other usages 
and forms of language, which require not to be inter- 
preted literally, stand ; that, as a matter of fact, and by 
tbe confession of all parties, it 1s used in Scripture, and 
admitted into and adopted in our Prayer Book; and that 
therefore it is too late to doubt its honesty as a usage, the 
only question to consider being whether it is correctly 
applied in the particular case. Indeed, this point is con- 
ceded by reflecting reasoners on both sides, none of whom 
object to the principle of hypothetical interpretation; the 
only question being as to its application, whether it is 
admissible in the particular case before us. 

2. We come then to the particular case of the state- 
ment before us; and there meets us at the very outset 
an obstacle to the literal interpretation of it—an obstacle 
certainly which is not of our own making, because it lies 


Cuar. IV.] JLuterpretation considered. 279 


upon the very surface of Scripture, and consists in the 
meaning itself of the word “ regenerate,” or ‘ born of 
God,” as employed in Scripture. In its apparent Scrip- 
tural meaning this term implies actual goodness; but 
can we say, in consistency with simple facts, that all 
infants are made actually good, or have a pious and 
virtuous character implanted in them in baptism? Here 
then is not a gratuitous but a natural obstacle to the 
literal interpretation of this statement. 

But, without assuming this sense of the word as the 
true one, however conspicuous in Scripture and supported 
by the obvious and natural sense of the language of 
Scripture, the issue is still the same. The Church no- 
where defines the sense of the term “regenerate:” she 
leaves it open then to any one to understand the word 
in the sense just mentioned, implying actual goodness: 
she leaves it open even to any one to understand it in 
the Calvinistic sense, as implying indefectible goodness. 
But the liberty to hold these senses is the liberty to hold 
that construction of this statement which inevitably goes 
along with them. 

Those who make the charge of dishonesty against the 
hypothetical interpretation of this statement do not put 
before themselves the grownds on which this interpretation 
is given by those who do adopt it. They imagine the 
interpreter coming to this conclusion, simply upon the 
ground of the statement itself, and with nothing else 
before him; in which case his conclusion justly appears 
altogether untenable and gratuitous: whereas the inter- 
preter, when he comes to this conclusion, is in possession 
of other data besides the statement itself: he has the 
advantage of the admitted fact of hypothetical construc- 
tion as a usage in Church Services: he has the advantage 
of the fact that the very statement in question 1s, by the 
admission of all parties, used hypothetically in the Adult 


280 Rule of Literal [ Parr II. 


Baptismal Service; and he has the advantage of the fact 
that the Church allows a specific doctrine and sense of a 
term, which necessitate this construction in this particular 
instance. These are facts or data beyond the statement 
itself, which plainly affect its force and character as a 
statement; but if a person confines his attention to the 
statement itself, as if that were the one and sole fact 
in the case, and does not recognize these further data, 
he necessarily judges as a person does who has not the 
true state of the case before him; and he sets down an 
interpretation for which he does not see the reasons as 
simply unreasonable. 

Those who urge this general objection of insincerity 
forget the important point, that some persons come to 
this statement in the Baptismal Service with a totally 
different sense of the word “‘ regenerate ”’ from their own. 
They understand the word in a sense quite harmonizing 
with the literal construction of this statement; they then 
say how gratuitous is any other construction.. But other 
persons come to this statement who have habitually 
and all their lives understood the word “ regenerate’ to 
imply actual goodness and holiness, and who appeal to 
this as the obvious sense of Scripture. ‘These then say 
that the simple meaning of the word obliges them to 
understand this statement hypothetically, and that they 
have grown up in the Church with this sense of the word 
in their minds, and with the right allowed them to con- 
sider it the only true sense; and more than this, even 
to attach indefectibility to that sense, inasmuch as the 
Church nowhere prohibits this addition to the sense of 
the word. 

Any interpretation of a statement which is not the 
literal one lies of course under the disadvantage that it 
requires explanation; and this has made many shrink 
from the defence of the hypothetical interpretation of this 


Cuap. IV.] JLnterpretation considered. 281 


statement. ‘There is a disposition in controversy to take 
undue advantage of all admissions, and that the case 
requires explanation is an admission. But those who 
have every day they live to hear explanations, and who 
find it a daily occurrence that explanation brings out 
truth; who have constantly to alter their impressions of 
facts in consequence of explanation, and to correct their 
understandings of terms and statements in consequence 
of explanation, ought not to think it much of a presump- 
tion against an interpretation that it requires explanation. 
They must know that explanation very often is true 
explanation ; consonant with the facts of the case, and 
necessary to the simple end that those facts should be 
seen and noticed. They must know that explanation is 
constantly but the supplement of omission, bringing 
within our sight those further facts of which a prima facie 
view does not take cognizance; that, therefore, a prima 
facie view has by no means so great a presumption in its 
favour as compared with the result of explanation. 

The mere fear of explanation then, i.e. of a collision 
and encounter with a prima facie impression, ought not 
to deter us from stating how a matter really hes; nor 
should we affect obviousness and simplicity of ground at 
the cost of truth; nor should we aim at forming such a 
judgment as will correspond with the first-sight opinion 
of other persons, but such as will correspond to the facts 
of the case itself. 

The consciousness of this need of explanation has 
indeed been felt as a weight by some of the defenders of 
hypothetical interpretation, who have confessed in conse- 
quence an objection in the abstract to the use of such 
forms of language in services as require explanation. I 
cannot coincide in this regret, because there is no reason 
why the language of a Prayer Book should be more simple, 
direct, and categorical than human language generally ; 


282 Rule of Literal [Parr IT. 


and human language has adopted these forms. The rule 
of supposition pervades the language of society ; it enters 
into poetry, into oratory, into social intercourse. It has, 
because it has been incorporated in human language, 
been adopted by Scripture. A Prayer Book would not 
be improved by being divested of forms which are a part 
of human and a part of sacred language. Why should 
such a book aim at being more accurate than the natural 
language of mankind, and more accurate than the Bible? 
Such language requires explanation in the Prayer Book, 
and it requires explanation in Scripture too. And it is 
better that a Prayer Book should follow established types, 
and be moulded upon an ancient popular and sacred 
model, than that it should adopt the nudity and stiffness 
of a new devotional language. But when I differ from 
this regret, I must remark that the advantage which has 
been taken of this confession of regret is unfair, It has 
been interpreted as a confession of error, but persons 
admit nothing against the truth of a particular explana- 
tion of certain language, by objecting to the use of 
language which requires explanation. 

But another and important defence of explanation has 
still to be added, and that is, that on the question before 
us neither side can do without it. Hither interpretation 
here entails the need of explanation: if you get rid of it 
in one quarter, it meets you in another. If you interpret 
the statement that the infant is regenerate literally, you 
are clear of explanation for that one step, but another 
places you opposite the sense of the word “‘ regenerate ” 
in Scripture, and then you have to explain. The re- 
generate state implies actual goodness, if we interpret 
Scripture literally. Have all infants actual goodness 
implanted in them in baptism? If you affirm this, you 
apparently contradict facts, and have to explain how you 
do not. If you deny that regeneration means this, you 


Cuap. IV.] Lnterpretation considered. 283 





apparently contradict Scripture, and have to explain how 
you do not. And you will find either of these explana- 
tions impracticable,’ while the one which is given on the 
other side is only an appeal to a known and familiar usage 


of language. 
° Chapters vy. and x. Part I, 


CHAPTER V 


ARTICLES AND PRAYER BOOK CONSIDERED IN CONNEXION 


TE relation of the Articles to the Prayer Book is some- 
times stated as being this, that the former exhibits the 
doctrinal teaching of the Church, while the latter does 
not contain any doctrinal teaching, but only her forms of 
devotion. But this mode of describing the two is not 
wholly correct, because devotional offices may contain and 
teach doctrine, as being founded and constructed upon it. 
And accordingly the Fifty-seventh Canon declares, that 
“the doctrine both of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper is 
so sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer 
to be used at the administration of the said sacraments, 
as nothing can be added unto it that is material and 
necessary.” 

But while devotional services, as well as Articles, may 
contain and teach doctrine, they can only do so as ser- 
vices ; according to the capacity which services have for 
doctrinal teaching, and subject to the construction and 
interpretation which the admitted liberties and usages of 
language in services entail. In estimating the doctrinal 
result of such services, we are bound to make allowance 
for these usages and liberties of language, and cannot 
fasten upon particular statements in them a tighter mean- 
ing than the rules of language, as it is employed in 
services, require. 

What is the doctrine of Baptism then set down, as the 
Fifty-seventh Canon says, in the Baptismal Services? 


Articles and Prayer Book, Sc. 285 


Certainly these offices teach a connexion between regene- 
ration and baptism, because they are founded upon such 
a connexion, and would indeed be entirely unmeaning 
without it. But it does not follow that the particular 
statement—“ This infant is regenerate,”—teaches the 
doctrine that all infants are regenerate in baptism; 
because there is a liberty and usage of language in Church 
Services which allows of statements being made in them 
literal in form, but yet hypothetical in meaning. The 
Fifty-seventh Canon, while it says that the service 
teaches a doctrine of baptism, does not say that it teaches 
it in the manner and style of a dogmatic formulary, all the 
statements of which must be interpreted literally; nor 
therefore does it assert that this particular statement is a 
dogmatic statement. The Adult Baptismal Service con- 
tains the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but the 
statement in it, “ These persons are regenerate,” does not 
therefore teach that all adults are regenerate in baptism. 
And the same distinction is applicable to the Infant 
Baptismal Service. 

But while the Articles do not monopolize the doctrinal 
teaching of the Church, they may still in a particular 
case throw an interpretative light upon the services, in 
this way; that we may upon examination find that the 
Articles are manifestly constructed with a certain design, 
and that it is wholly inconsistent with the evident design 
of the Articles that a decisive dogma on a certain point 
should be laid down in the Prayer Book. Such an 
argument, if made out, could not but be confirmatory of 
the interpretation of the Baptismal Service, which has 
been arrived at upon formulistic grounds. For the 
Articles and the Prayer Book being public documents of 
the same Church, owning the same authorship; it would 
indeed be unaccountable, if a certain doctrinal design 
was quite apparent in the Articles, which was yet 


286 Articles and Prayer Book {Part II. 


positively contradicted and frustrated in the Prayer 
Book. 

The Articles then are, by the admission of all parties, 
constructed with an inclusive and comprehensive aim. 
It is universally considered that they use a cautiously 
indefinite and a designedly ambiguous language on con- 
troverted questions, for the very purpose that the same 
statements in them may be subscribed by different schools, 
which, though disagreeing with each other, are both 
embraced within the limits of a general formula. By 
some this is thought a fault in the Articles, by others a 
merit, but all agree to the fact. Let us turn to the 
Twenty-seventh Article on Baptism. This article too is 
obviously constructed, in accordance with the design of 
the whole, with a deliberately inclusive aim; carefully 
confining itself to such general statements of the nature 
of baptism as a sacrament and the grace attaching to it, 
as all recognized parties in the Church could then agree 
in, and accept in common. It is evidently with this 
design that it leaves out all mention of the effect of 
baptism upon infants; because it could not lay down any 
precise or definite doctrine on this subject, but at the 
imminent peril of offending one or other existing school, 
whereas by omitting the subject and confining itself to 
the assertion of the duty of admitting the infant to the 
rite itself, it avoids this danger, and the whole Article 
becomes a general formula of the kind just mentioned, to 
which different schools may subscribe. 

It is contrary then to the plain design of the Church as 
manifested in the Article on Baptism, that a dogmatic 
statement upon a strongly controverted point relating to 
the subject of that Article, should be inserted in any 
other portion of our formularies. For the obvious reason 
why the Article on Baptism is made so comprehensive as 
it is, and cautiously confined to neutral and inclusive 


CHap. V.| consedered tn connexion. 287 


statements, is that the basis of the Church may be inclusive 
on this subject. But this object is not attained if a test- 
ing dogmatic statement is only omitted in the Articles in 
order to be inserted in some other section of our formu- 
laries ; that is to say, if all that is gained by the omission 
of it in one place, is that it is shifted to another. For 
the particular place in which a dogmatic statement 
appears makes no difference, so long as it is a dogmatic’ 
statement; and it is as testing, occurring in one portion 
of our formularies, as occurring in another. The Articles 
then, so far as they treat of baptism, being palpably 
constructed with the design of inclusion, and of avoid- 
ing any statement to which one or other party in the 
Church could not assent; it is as total a contradiction 
as can be conceived to the design of the Articles, that 
a statement which, on account of the opposition it 
would create, is avoided in an article, should be inserted 
as a dogmatic statement in one of the services of the 
Church. 

It must be observed that the ground upon which this 
argument rests is not the simple omission of the statement 
in question in the Articles ; for, so far as this is concerned, 
the Church is not confined to one place for the situation 
of a doctrinal statement, but may make it in another if it 
suits her convenience; and it is admitted that doctrinal 
statements are made by her in places outside of the 
Articles. But the ground on which this argument rests 
is not omission in the Articles simply, but omission with 
design. It is agreed onall sides that it is not by accident 
or without a purpose that the Articles make neutral 
statements on many subjects, which can be accepted by 
different parties in the Church, and are as comprehensive 
and inclusive as they are; but that this is done with 
design, and with the aim of including different parties in 
the Church within the limits of the Church’s formularies. 


288 Articles and Prayer Book [Part II. 


It is admitted that the Article on Baptism is thus neutral 
and inclusive designedly.* But if the comprehensiveness 
of the Articles in general, and of this Article along with 
the rest, is designed; and if the Church abstains from 
making a statement upon a controverted point in this 
Article because the insertion would be unacceptable to 
one portion of the Church; it is then altogether contrary 
to such a design that the statement in question should be 
made as a dogmatic statement in another place. And to 
attribute such an arrangement to the Church is to attri- 
bute to her a mode of proceeding which is wholly in- 
comprehensible and irrational. 

Two answers, however, may be made to this appeal to 
the unity and consistency of design in the Articles and 
the Prayer Book. One is a denial of the inconsistency in 
the present instance, upon the ground that, the publication 
of the Prayer Book having preceded that of the Articles, 
the omission in the Articles of the statement of the 
regeneration of all infants in baptism was not owing to a 
design to make the Article comprehensive, but only to 
the fact that the statement had been already made in the 
service, and that therefore there was no need to make it 
again in the Articles. But this is obviously an insufficient 
explanation of such an omission. ‘The Prayer Book 
throughout contains and is founded upon various doc- 
trines; but this does not prevent those doctrines from 
being formally stated in the Articles, which is the proper 
place for the formal statement of them. Nor therefore, 
were a certain doctrine contained in the Baptismal 


1 Mr. Fisher admits “ the palpable ambiguity of the Article on 
Baptism in particular.” Revision of the Liturgy, p. 213. Pro- 
fessor Harold Browne admits the designed ambiguity of the Article, 
though he attributes it to the king’s “leaning to the Swiss Re- 
tormers,” as well as to the desire of the compilers “to satisfy some 
foreign divines.” Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 667. 





Cuapr. V.] considered in connexion. 289 





Services, would that be any reason why that doctrine 
should not be stated in the Article on Baptism, which 
was the proper place for the formal statement of it. But 
the truth is, no conclusion can be drawn from any minute 
difference in the date of the publication of the Articles 
and the Prayer Book; because, though in the reconstruc- 
tion of the formularies of a Church, everything cannot be 
done at once, and therefore one part comes out before 
another, the publication of these two sets of formularies 
is practically simultaneous if they come out as near one 
another as convenience permits. Though it may be 
mentioned, if the fact is of any importance, that the 
construction of the second book, i.e. our present Book of 
Common Prayer and the construction of the Articles, were 
going on in the same year.? Indeed, this argument is 
undermined by the very admission which is made on all 
sides that the Article on Baptism is designedly ambiguous 
and neutral. 

The more common answer, however, is the broad and 
frank acceptance of the conclusion, which has been 
urged above as a reductio ad absurdum. It 1s con- 
sidered by some that the design of the Articles and that 
of the Prayer Book are contradictory, and conflict with 
each other. It is a common statement that the theology 
of the Articles is contrary to the theology of the Prayer 
Book, which latter is alleged to be inconsistent with 
Calvinism. If this is the case then, I observe first that 


2 “Tn 1551 the king and the Privy Council ordered the Arch- 
bishop to frame a book of Articles of Religion.” Archbishop Wake, 
quoted by Cardwell, Synodalia, vol. i. p.2. ‘The Commissioners 
appear to have completed their revision of the Book of Common 
Prayer before the end of the year 1551.” Cardwell, Preface to the 
Two Liturgies, p. 29. ‘The new service book was put forth in 
1552... The same year saw the publication of the Forty-two 
Articles of Religion.” Professor H. Browne’s Exposition of the 
Thirty-nine Articles, Introduction, p. 6. 


U 


290 Articles and Prayer Book {Parr II. 


the contradiction is inexplicable, because the two sets of 
formularies issued from the hands of the same responsible 
compilers at the same time, to supply two concordant 
objects of faith and worship for the same Church. It 
may be said that our Reformers intended a compromise, 
and that this compromise was effected by constructing 
two sets of formularies in contradiction to each other ; 
the Articles to please the Calvinists, and the Prayer Book 
to please the older school. But a compromise, if it is 
carried to the extent of contradiction, is suicidal, and 
defeats its own object; because one side then cannot 
accept the set of formularies made for tke other side and 
against itself. The Reformers, therefore, could not have 
intended a contradiction between the Articles and the 
Prayer Book, and the whole history of the reception of 
the Prayer Book disagrees with such a notion; for the 
Prayer Book was accepted by the most rigid Calvinists, 
who indeed became the stout and zealous defenders of it 
against the Puritans. 

That the Articles and the Prayer Book, therefore, 
should be in contradiction to each other is inexplicable, 
but it is much more important to observe, as I do in the 
next place, that on comparing the two sets of formularies 
together we do not, as a matter of fact, see any such con- 
tradiction as is here alleged. The notion of a contradic- 
tion between the Articles and the Prayer Book appears — 
to have arisen, in the first place, from the circumstance 
that the Prayer Book was taken from ancient documen- 
tary sources, being a compilation from the old rituals 
hitherto in use; whereas the Articles were a new docu- 
ment of the day. It is inferred from this that the 
doctrine of the Prayer Book is the old doctrine, and that 
of the Articles the new, and that the two sets of formu- 
laries are thus in conflict with each other. But a little 
reflection is enough to show the incorrectness of such an 


Cuap. V.] considered in connexion. 291 


inference as this; because a compiler is in no way bound 
or committed to an adhesion to all the doctrine of the 
ancient formularies from which he compiles, or obliged 
to adopt it at all further than agrees with the doctrinal 
basis, whatever that may be, of his own Church.* And 
therefore if, in the construction of a new Prayer Book, he 
prefers remodelling old material to making a fresh book 
altogether, not only for convenience sake, but from a 
respect to antiquity, and because ceteris paribus he pre- 
fers ancient language and forms to new; that is no reason 
why the compilation should contain any doctrine different 
from what the book would have contained had it been a 
fresh composition altogether. Nor is that a circumstance 
which at all affects the theological basis of our Prayer 
Book. 

This ground then for supposing a contradiction between 
the Articles and the Prayer Book being wholly insufficient, 
we come next to the actual language of the Prayer Book, 
and we find that the language of the Prayer Book is the 
natural language of mankind, implying voluntary action 
and moral responsibility. But the Calvinistic hypothesis 
is no more inconsistent with this language ag used in the 
Prayer Book than it is with the same language as used 
in the ordinary intercourse of man with man. And 
therefore if the right is conceded, as it is, to the Calvinist 
to use this mode of speaking on ordinary occasions and 
in the business of life, it must be conceded to him also 
in his devotions, private or public. Indeed, there is 


3 Archbishop Laurence excludes the Calvinist from the use of 
the prayer in the Burial Service: “ Suffer us not at our last hour 
for any fear of death to fall from thee:” and upon the Calvinist 
explaining that he admits the phenomenon of fall from goodness, 
only denying that goodness which is finally fallen away from can 
be true and real, tells him that “the original” of the prayer does 
not admit of that meaning. B. L. p 381. 

U2 


292 Articles and Prayer Book {Parr Il. 


nothing in this language, as used either in common life 
or a Prayer Book, which is inconsistent with the Calvin- 
istic hypothesis ; for all that is necessarily implied in 
this language is the existence of the will in man; the 
mode in which this will is moved, whether by itself or by 
an external cause, not being decided by it, but left open. 
Thus, if I say, “I will do so and so,” or “I will endea- 
vour, or have endeavoured to do so and so,” that phrase 
implies a motion of the will, but is consistent with either 
hypothesis of the cause of that motion; the Calvinistic, 
that it is external to the will, or the Arminian, that it is 
the will itself. And, for the same reason, the phrases 
which are used in human language to express the idea of 
moral responsibility are common to the Calvinistic and 
Arminian hypothesis, because they only imply, as the 
condition of moral responsibility, voluntary action, which 
is admitted on both sides. Both theories hold human 
language as their common ground. There is, indeed, 
involved in the case of the Prayer Book the special act of 
prayer; but the act of prayer is not inconsistent with the 
Calvinistic hypothesis, because the circumstance of the 
end being foreordained is not inconsistent with the 
necessity of the means, of which means prayer may be 
one. Nor,if the Calvinistic hypothesis is consistent with 
prayer in general, is there anything in the forms of 
prayer in the Prayer Book to prevent a Calvinist from — 
using them in particular. 

We come then to another, and the only remaining 
ground upon which the notion that the Calvinistic hypo- 
thesis is inconsistent with the language of the Prayer 
Book has arisen, viz. the Sacramental language of the 
Prayer Book. But there is nothing in the general doc- 
trine of sacramental grace which is inconsistent with the 
Calvinistic hypothesis, because, as has been just said, 
the circumstance that the end is foreordained does not 


Cuar. V.] = conszdered in connexion. 293 


supersede the necessity of means; and if means are 
necessary, there is no reason why the Sacraments should 
not be among those means; nor is it the doctrine of 
Calvinism that the Sacraments have not grace, but only 
that the elect alone are partakers of that grace. The 
whole proof of the assertion that Calvinism is inconsistent 
with the language of the Prayer Book thus falls back 
upon the single statement in the Infant Baptismal Ser- 
vice, made over the child baptized, that it is regenerate ; 
but this ground assumes the necessity of the literal 
interpretation of that statement, which has been shown 
to be an incorrect assumption. 

The statement, therefore, that the Calvinistic hypo- 
thesis 1s inconsistent with the language of the Prayer 
Book is an ill-considered statement, reflecting only a 
rough off-hand impression, which proper reflection would 
correct. It has obtained currency because it has appealed 
to this off-hand impression, but an act of thought at once 
reveals its groundlessness. For if we admit that a 
Calvinist can be a religious man, can pray, wish, resolve, 
aspire, love, fear, reverence, and worship as religious men 
do, why should he not do all this in the language of the 
Prayer Book? What is there in that language that he 
cannot use? Leta man only ask himself that question, 
and this dictum at once falls to the ground. The Prayer 
Book was submitted to the criticism of Calvinists after it 
was compiled ; it was afterwards protected by Calvinists 
when it was attacked ; it has been used quite naturally 
by thousands of pious and devout Calvinists of every 
generation from the Reformation to the present day. 
The great battle of the sixteenth century, in defence of the 
Prayer Book, was conducted by two Calvinists; for 
Whitgift was the author of the “ Lambeth Articles,” 
and Hooker held the doctrine of the indefectibility of 
grace. Hven if it be denied that Hooker was himself a 


294 Articles and Prayer Book considered, &c. 


Calvinist, the “ Ecclesiastical Polity” is throughout a 
defence of the Prayer Book, upon the argumentative 
assumption of the truth of the Calvinistic hypothesis. 
Hooker then, at any rate, saw no opposition between 
the Prayer Book and the Calvinistic hypothesis, 
even if Lord Chatham did.* Indeed, this notion has 
arisen principally from persons not knowing what the 
Calvinistic hypothesis is, and going to their own imagi- 
nations for their conception of it. 

The very construction and evident design of our 
Articles thus constitute a standing witness to the parti- 
cular value of the statement in the Baptismal Service, 
viz. to the fact that, as occurring in a service, it is not a 
dogmatic statement, but admits of an hypothetical con- 
struction; because, upon any other supposition, we have 
a coutradiction between the design of the Prayer Book 
and the evident design of the Articles, which is altogether 
unaccountable. We should have to believe that, upon a 
controverted point, the Reformers laid down a decisive 
position as framers of a service, which they designedly 
omitted as framers of an article; but as we cannot sup- 
pose this, the only alternative is that the statement in the 
Infant Baptismal Service is not dogmatic, but admits of 
being construed hypothetically. 


4 The great currency of the not very wise saying, that “the | 
Church of England has Calvinistic Articles,a Popish Liturgy, and . 
a Latitudinarian Clergy,” is a good instance of the popular habit 
of resting in the general fame of the author of a remark, without 
the slightest consideration of the only relevant point, viz. whether 
he was acquainted with the subject-matter of remark. 


CHAPTER VI 
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES 


In the controversy about the interpretation of the Infant 
Baptismal Service great stress has been laid upon the 
documentary sources from which the service is derived, 
viz. the Lutheran baptismal offices, and, through them, 
the Ancient baptismal offices; the principle being first 
assumed that the derived formulary must be interpreted 
by the formulary from which it is derived; the fact bemg 
assumed next, that both in the Lutheran and Ancient 
Offices the statement that the baptized infant is rege- 
nerate is dogmatic ; and then the conclusion being drawn 
that it is equally a dogmatic statement in our own. Hven 
supposing then the state of fact with regard to the origi- 
nal formularies, Lutheran and Ancient, to be as is here 
described, we have still to consider the claim and pre- 
tension of this documentary principle of interpretation. 
But, first of all, what is the state of the fact with regard 
to the Lutheran and Ancient Offices? and first, with 
regard to the Lutheran ? 

It is admitted, then, that at the date of the construc- 
tion of the Lutheran offices, containing this statement, 
the theology of the Lutheran Church was rigidly Cal- 
vinistic. I say Calvinistic, because, though the use of 
that term in the present case is an anachronism, it is cor- 
rect for the purpose of describing the actual doctrine of 
the Lutherans at that time. The first Lutheran Bap- 
tismal office came out in 1523, and a revised form of it 


296 Documentary Sources. [Part IT. 


followed in 1524; while Luther’s treatise, De Servo 
Arbitrio, bears the date of 1525, and the first edition of 
Melancthon’s Loci Theologict that of 1521. The above 
formularies then, and the above works, may be regarded 
as contemporaries, while the latter, as the productions of 
such authors, must be allowed to represent the theology 
of the Lutheran communion at that time; the author of 
the De Servo Arbitrio being also himself the compiler of 
the Baptismal offices. What are the doctrines then of 
the De Servo Arbitrio, and of the Loci Theologici? The 
book, De Servo Arbitrio, is an unqualified exposition of 
the doctrine of irresistible grace, teaching that the human 
will is after the fall incapable of moving itself in whole 
or in part to good, and that all good action is the pure 
effect of an irresistible motion communicated to it by a 
Sovereign power, in whose hands it is as clay in the hands 
of the potter. “The human will is like a beast of 
burden ; if God sits on it, it wills and goes where God 
wills ; if Satan sits on it, it wills and goes where Satan 
wills ; nor is it in its power to choose which sitter to run 
to, but the very sitters contend for the possession of it.” * 
“Tn the things pertaining to salvation or damnation, 
man has not free will, but is a captive subject and slave 
either of the will of God or of the will of Satan.”? “ Our 
salvation depends entirely on the work of God, in the 
absence of which work all that we do is evil, and we do 
this necessarily; necessarily, I say, though not by force 
or violence, as if we were dragged by the neck.”* “The 
human will does what it does, whether good or ill, as af 
it were truly free; but yet the immutable will of God 
governs our mutable will. The mind of the reader must 
supply what the term itself does not of itself express ; 
and understand by necessity, the immutability of the will 


1 Op. tom. i. p. 431. 2 Thid. p. 482. 3 Thid. p. 431. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 207 


of God, and the impotence of our own evil will.”* “If 
God works in us, the will wills and acts, not as if by 
force, but willingly and spontaneously, so that no oppo- 
sition can change, or the very gates of hell conquer it; 
but it goes on willing, liking, and loving good—pergit 
volendo amando et lubendo bonum—as before it willed, 
liked, and loved evil; so that there is no free will or 
liberty of turning elsewhere or willing anything else, so 
long as the Spirit and grace of God remain in man.” * 
“Tf free will had any power, John would not have re- 
jected the ‘ will of man,’ and sent man to faith and rege- 
neration alone. . . . I would have all the defenders of 
free will know that while they assert free will they deny 
Christ. . . . Whatsoever is not Christ is not the way 
but error, not the truth but a lie, not life but death, but 
free will is not Christ or in Christ: it comes, therefore, 
under the head of error, falsehood, and death. Where 
then and whence is had that middle and neutral thing 
called the power of free will?’’?® The Loci Theologici of 
Melancthon contain the same doctrine :—‘‘ Quandoqui- 
dem omnia quee eveniunt juxta divinam predestinationem 
eveniunt, nulla est voluntatis nostre libertas.”’? Arch- 
bishop Laurence admits, that “‘ at the commencement of 
the Reformation both Melancthon and Luther held the 
harsh doctrine of a philosophical necessity ;’’ and that 
“‘the idea of a pure passivity in conversion, the idea that 
the human will, though not idle, contributed nothing 
toward the formation of the act itself,” was the original 
doctrine of the Lutherans, to which, he says, after a 
change of opinion in the body as a whole, some divines 
*‘ reverted.” ° 

But the doctrine of the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism is based upon the principle of free will; and the 


4 Tom. ii. p. 426. 5 Ibid. p. 481. 6 Thid. pp. 478, 479. , 
7 Bampton Lectures, p. 248. 8 Ibid. p. 292. 


20g: Documentary Sources. [Parr IT. 


event itself shows that irresistible grace—the only grace 
recognized hitherto in Lutheran divinity—for producing 
holiness and goodness, is not given to all infants in bap- 
tism. The doctrine of the Lutherans then was in total 
contradiction to this statement in the Baptismal Services 
of the Lutherans, at the very time of its insertion, on the 
supposition that this statement was dogmatic. And this 
is strong evidence for concluding that this statement was 
not intended to be dogmatic. Asa statement in a ser- 
vice it does not necessarily bear that character, be- 
cause the same statement is applied to adults; and 
there is the reason just given for concluding that it did 
not. 

It is urged, indeed, that both Luther and Melancthon 
subsequently recanted this extreme doctrine. Of Melanc- 
thon this assertion is true; of Luther it cannot be proved. 
Luther’s subsequent works contain strong protests against 
the abuse of this doctrine of grace which had been great 
among some sectaries, who had perverted it into a licence 
for immorality, using the well-known fallacy, that if the 
end was preordained, the means were not necessary, and. 
therefore that it did not signify 1 in the interim whether 
they lived in holiness or sin. But these protests against 
the abuse of the doctrine do not imply any hendiare ae 
of the doctrine itself; these warnings and cautions are 
what the most rigid Calvinist would not object to, but 
would himself use in dealing with Antinomianism and 
with vulgar mistakes about, and false inferences from, the 
Calvinistic doctrine. Luther is denouncing those who 
argued thus: ‘‘Quos Deus eligit necessario salvantur, e 
contra vero quos non eligit, quicquid etiam fecerint, quale- 
cunque pietatis studium preestent, tamen exitium declinare 
non poterunt, neque salutem consequentur. Proinde ergo 
me necessitati non opponam. Si ita destinatum est ut 
salver, salvabor; sin minus, irritum erit quicquid conatus 


Cuap. VI.| Documentary Sources. 299 


fuero.”°® But such a doctrine as this is plainly not the 


doctrine of Predestination, but a gross perversion of it, 
the coarse mistake of vulgar minds confounding a pre- 
ordained with an unconditional issue, and inferring that if 
God created man’s goodness, He did not require or insist 
upon such goodness. And therefore when Archbishop 
Laurence quotes Luther’s protests against such opinions 
as evidence that Luther had given up the doctrine of the 
De Servo Arbitrio, he is quoting what is plainly not to 
the purpose.’ 

It is true also that Luther in his subsequent writings 
draws a strong distinction between God as He is revealed 
to us, and God as He exists in Himself and in His own 
inscrutable essence, between the Deus Revelatus and the 
Deus Absconditus ; urging that we have to do with God 
only as a revealed, and notasanunknownGod. And this 
distinction is drawn for a practical purpose, to take men 
away from curious inquiries into the Divine predestina- 
tion, and fix them upon action and duty. But this 
distinction is no abandonment of the doctrine of grace 
taught in the De Servo Arbitrio, because the doctrine 
taught there is plainly taught as a part of revelation, and 
not as a part of the hidden and unknown truth of the 
Divine nature. It is proclaimed as the certain and con- 
spicuous doctrine of Scripture, which cannot be denied 
without denying the plain sense of Scripture, and tamper- 
ing with the express word of God. The reasons why God 
dispenses this irresistible grace in the way He does, 
imparting it only toa few and leaving the rest of mankind, 
in the absence of it, to perish in their sins,—these reasons 
are unknown, and belong to the Deus Absconditus: but 
the fact that His grace is irresistible is known from 
Scripture, and that belongs to the Deus Revelatus. It 


® Postilla Domestica, p. 57, quoted by Taurence, B. L. 160. 
1 Note 31. 


300 Documentary Sources. [Part II. 


would, indeed, have been very inconsistent in a writer to 
have been setting forth throughout a whole treatise a 
truth which he himself at the same time declared to be 
unknown; but Luther does no such thing; he insists 
upon the doctrine of irresistible grace as a published and 
revealed doctrine. Why it has been published and 
revealed we are not presumptuously to inquire: “ Deus 
voluit ea vulgari, voluntatis vero Divine rationem queren- 
dam non esse.” He gives this as a sufficient answer to 
Hrasmus, who thinks that there was no use in revealing a 
doctrine, even if true, which must so inevitably be made 
bad use of. But he adds that we may see good reasons 
for the revelation of it. One is to provide a testing truth, 
the acceptance or rejection of which will distinguish the 
elect from the reprobate,—“ Propter Hlectos ista vul- 
gantur, ut isto modo humiliati et in nihilum redacti salvi 
fiant. Ceeteri resistent humiliationi huic.’?* Another 
reason is a kindred one, to give room for the exercise of 
faith,—‘“ Hic est fidei summus gradus credere illum esse 
clementem qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat ; 
credere justum qui sua voluntate nos necessario damna- 
biles facit.’? * 

It is true that Luther draws men away from speculations 
upon grace to those conditions and means of grace which 
are revealed in Scripture; and to the idle objection,— 
“ Oportet fieri quod Deus preefinivit, igitur incerta et 
inanis est omnis cura de religione aut de salute anima- 
rum,” replies, “ Atqui tibi non est commissum ut feras 
sententiam que est impervestigabilis. Quorsum enim 
attinebat mittere Filium ut pateretur et crucifigeretur 
pro nobis ? Quid proderat instituere sacramenta, si incerta 
sunt aut irrita prorsus ad nostram salutem? Alioqui 
enim si quis fuerit predestinatus, absque fide et absque 


2 De Servo Arbitrio. Op. tom. ii. p.481. Ibid. * Ibid. 


Cuar. VI.|] Documentary Sources. 301 


sacramentis aut Scriptura sacra esset salvatus®.... Deus 
revelat nobis voluntatem suam per Christum et Evan- 
gelium.”® But to draw men from speculations upon grace 
was not to retract his teaching as to the fact of it. Calvin 
makes the same distinction :—“ Multa scripsi et in variis 
disputationum generibus me Dominus exercuit. Si ex 
meis lucubrationibus syllabam proferat, ubi doceam a 
Preedestinatione exordiwm fieri debere ad petendam salutis 
certitudinem, obmutescere non recuso. Arcane electionis 
mentio obiter a me facta est, fateor, sed quorsum? An 
ut pias mentes vel a promissionis auditu, vel a signorum 
intuitu abducerem? Atqui nihil mihi majori cure fuit, 
quam eas prorsus in verbo retinere. Quid? dum toties 
inculco sacramentis offerri gratiam, an non ad petendam 
inde salutis sue obsignationem eos invito ?”’7 

Indeed, the chief and most prominent reason which 
Luther gives against curious inquiries into Predestination 
is that speculations upon election tend immediately to 
disturb the assurance of the individual that he is one 
of the elect. In the mere exercise of curiosity the soul 
fastened upon nothing, but was carried into a region of 
darkness and a whirl of endless questions, in the midst of 
which it lost its hold upon the truth of its own election. 
The inevitable issue of mere speculation was uncertainty, 
because unknown truth could not be grasped, and the 
whole search must end in a void and a blank; whereas, if 
the revealed truth itself of God’s election and sovereign 
grace was laid hold of, by fastening upon that, the indi- 
vidual appropriated that election to himself, and attained 
the assurance of his own salvation. Of these attempts 
then, penetrare profunditatem divinitatis, he says, “ Sunt 
he prestigiz diaboli, quibus conatur nos dubios et incertos 
reddere, cum Christus ideo venerit in mundum ut faceret 


5 Op. tom. vi. p. 353. 6 Thid. p. 355. 
7 Tract. Theol. p. 684. 


302 Documentary Sources. (Parr Th 


nos certissimos.”’* These kind of thoughts issuein mere 


emptiness and perplexity. ‘ Hjusmodi cogitationes quz 
aut supra aut extra revelationem Dei sublimius aliquid 
rimantur, prorsus diabolice sunt, quibus nihil amplius 
proficitur quam ut nos ipsos in exitlum preecipitemus, 
quia objiciunt objectum impervestigabile, videlicet Deum 
non revelatum. . . . Ibinulla fides, nullum verbum, neque 
ulla cognitio est, quia est invisibilis Deus, quem tu non 
facies visibilem.” But was this the design of God? 
“ Promulgando legem et Evangelium, mittendis Apostolis 
hoc voluit tantum, ut essemus incerti et dubitaremus, utrum 
simus salvandi an vero damnandi?”? That was not His 
purpose, but the very contrary: “Initio quidem statim 
voluit Deus occurrere huic curiositati: sic enim suam 
voluntatem et consilium proposuit : Ego tibi preescientiam 
et preedestinationem egregie manifestabo, sed non ista via 
rationis et sapientiz carnalis sicut tu imaginaris. Sic 
faciam: ex Deo non revelato fiam revelatus, et tamen idem 
Deus manebo. Egoincarnabor vel mittam Filium meum. 
Hic morietur pro tuis peccatis, et resurget a mortuis. 
Atque ita implebo desiderium tuum wt possis scire an sis 
predestinatus an non. ... Deus enim non de ccelo de- 
scendit ut faceret te incertum de preedestinatione, ut doceret 
te contemnere sacramenta, absolutionem et reliquas ordi- 
nationes divinas. Imo ideo instituit ut redderet te certis- 
simum, et auferret morbum dubitationis ex animo tuo.” 
Cease speculating then, he says: “ Omitte speculationem 
de Deo Abscondito, et desine frustra contendere ad 
videndam faciem Dei. Alioqui perpetuo tibi in increduli- 
tate et damnatione herendum, quia qui dubitat non 
credit. . . . Intuere vulnera Christi, et sanguinem pro 
te profusum. Ex istis fulgebit preedestinatio. Audiendus 
est Filius Dei, qui missus est in carnem et ideo apparuit 


3 Op. tom. vi. p. 354. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 303 


ut hoc opus diabolicum dissolvat, et certwm te faciat de 
predestinatione.” ° 

Luther’s distinction, then, between the Deus Revelatus 
and Deus Absconditus involves no recantation of the 
doctrine of the De Servo Arbitrio; indeed, he expressly 
presents this distinction, when he does present it, in his 
subsequent writings, not as a new one, but as the very 
distinction which he had drawn in the De Servo Arbitrio 
itself. ‘‘ Hac studiose et accurate sic monere et tradere 
volui. Quia post meam mortem multi meos libros pro- 
ferent in medium, et inde omnis generis errores et deliria 
sua confirmabunt. Scripsi autem inter reliqua, esse 
omnia absoluta et necessaria; sed simul addidi quod 
aspiciendus sit Deus revelatus. Sed istos locos omnes 
transibunt, et eos tantum accipient de Deo Abscondito.”’ ! 
Archbishop Laurence, indeed, quotes this passage as an 
implicit retractation of the De Servo Arbitrio,? but Luther, 
on the contrary, expressly identifies himself here with 
that book, referring to it as containing the same doctrine 
of grace, with the same practical cautions to go along 
with it, which he holds now. 

There is no proof then that Luther ever abandoned 
the doctrine of the De Servo Arbitrio. He never re- 
tracted the book: he referred to it even with satisfaction 
in his latest writings as a work which would be made a 
wrong use of by some, but which contained its own pro- 
test against such wrong use, and he inserted it at the 
close of his life in the collection of his works. But, for 
the purpose of the present argument, it must be observed 
that the question of a recantation is irrelevant. For no 
subsequent change of mind can: undo the fact of what 
the doctrine of Luther was, when he constructed the 
Lutheran Baptismal Office; or alter the contradiction of 

9 Op. tom. vi. p. 304. 1 Tbid. p. 355. 
* Bampton Lectures, p. 250. 


304 Documentary Sources. [Parr IT. 


that doctrine to that office, if the latter’s assertion of the 
infant’s regeneration was dogmatic. We find that at the 
time of the construction of this office the whole theology 
of the Lutheran Church was Calvinistic; but, the prin- 
ciple being acknowledged that a statement in a service 
is not necessarily doctrinal, such a contemporary state 
of doctrine in the communion must interpret a statement 
in a service of that communion, as not being doctrinal 
in the contrary direction. 

But the doctrine with which this statement in the 
Lutheran baptismal offices must be mainly taken in con- 
nexion, is the great Lutheran doctrine of justification by 
faith. The doctrine of justification by faith, as asserted 
in all the Lutheran formularies and expounded by Luther 
himself and all the Lutheran divines, is the doctrine that 
faith is in all cases, without exception, the instrument 
and the necessary condition of justification; that the 
principle of ex opere operato is in no case true, but that 
the grace of the Sacraments always depends on some- 
thing in the recipient to apprehend it, which apprehensive 
facuity is faith: that faith is therefore the condition of 
justification and regeneration in baptism in infants as 
well as adults. It was explained indeed, after contro- 
versy, that faith in their case was a rudimental and 
seminal faith, implanted by the Holy Spirit in the in- 
fantine soul before it was even conscious of it. This 
rudimental faith, however, was laid down as the con- 
dition of infant justification, just as faith in act was laid 
down as the condition of adult justification. 

The regeneration of infants in baptism thus depended, 
in Lutheran theology, upon the existence of something 
in the infant which did not belong to the infant as such, 
which did not naturally exist in him and formed no part 


3 Chapter ii. Part I., and Notes 4 and 32. 


Cap. VI.| Documentary Sources. 305 


of his state as an infant, but was a supernatural, a 
spiritual, and a later implanted gift. The regeneration 
of infants was, in short, in Lutheranism conditional, and 
there is only one reasonable supplement to conditional 
infant regeneration. A faith, which, though it is seminal, 
is the actual spiritual virtue itself, and only does not act, 
on account of the immaturity of nature, is not implanted 
in all infants before baptism ; because, if it was, it would 
come out and show itself in all as they grew up. A con- 
ditional infant regeneration is therefore a limited infant 
regeneration. 

And accordingly the Lutheran doctrine of infant bap- 
tismal regeneration was attacked by Bellarmine as a 
total departure from the doctrine of the Fathers. The 
denial of the ew opere operato in the case of infants, and 
the substitution in its stead of faith as the condition of 
infant justification—in a word, the reduction of infant 
baptism to the same law as that of adult, was denounced 
by the Roman writer as a complete revolution in doctrine ; 
and the Lutherans were charged with the invention of a 
new rationale of infant baptism hitherto unknown to the 
Church. The Fathers, it was said, had uniformly main- 
tained that the Sacrament of Baptism did produce its 
effect, ew opere operato, in infants, who, as being incapable 
of fulfilling the condition of faith, came under a special 
law; a doctrine which was now subverted, and made to 
give place to a doctrine of conditional infant regenera- 
tion. 

There were, indeed, Lutheran divines who gave this 
doctrine the contrary supplement to that which has been 
mentioned as the only rational one; who admitting the 
necessity of faith for infants, used language also imply- 
ing that this faith was by a special act of the Holy Spirit 


4 Tom. ii. p. 252, 


306 Documentary Sources. [Parr IT. 


implanted in every infant before baptism ; accounting 
for its non-appearance in the majority, as they grew up, 
by the supposition that it had been suppressed by the 
sins of childhood and by bad education before it had 
been able to manifest itself.” But this is evidently an 
artificial and absurd explanatory structure to engraft 
upon the Lutheran doctrine of conditional infant re- 
generation, of which the only rational complement is 
the further assertion of a limited infant regeneration. 
But whatever turn some later and more obscure 
Lutheran divines may have given to the Lutheran doc- 
trine, the earlier, best known, and most recognized 
representatives of that doctrine gave it a different inter- 
pretation. Melancthon only acknowledges a partial re- 
generation of the members of the visible Church. He > 
inserts this limitation in his definition of the visible Church 
in the Loct Theologici: “ Ecclesia visibilis est coetus 
amplectentium Hvangelium Christi, et recte utentium 
Sacramentis, in quo Deus per ministerium Hvangeli est 
efficax, et multos ad eeternam vitam regenerat, in quo 
coetu tamen multi sunt non renati.””?*® He repeats the 
definition in the Hxramen Theologicum, with the same 
limitation—“ in quo ccetu Filius multos regenerat.”’’ He 
repeats it in the Commentary on the Hpistle to the 
Romans with the same—‘“ in quo ccetu multos regenerat 


6 The absurdity of Jacob Andrea’s doctrine is transparent. This 
Lutheran divine in his conference with Beza rejects the idea of 
faith being only seminal in infants—semen jfidei quod non sit fides. 
Christ says “ faith,” ‘“ aperte fidem appellat,” and therefore faith it 
must be—‘‘etsi nos non videmus quo modo credant.” Having 
thus endowed all infants about to be baptized with literal faith, he 
explains that it often disappears as they grow up “negligentia 
parentum aut propria petulantia.”’ Acta Colloquii Montisbelligar- 
tensis, pp. 392—407. 

§ Loc. Theol. Postr. Ed. Op. tom. 1. p. 228. 

7 Examen Theol. Op. tom. i. p. 319. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 307 





dato Spiritu Sancto.” * He repeats it in the Disputations 
with the same: “ Suntque in eodem ccetu in hac vita 
multi non renati.”® He repeats it in the Saxon Con- 
fession with the same: “ Multos ad sternam vitam re- 
generat.” ' Melancthon’s sense of regeneration indeed 
is conversion: ‘ Acceptio per fidem Spiritus Sancti 
vocatur regener atio sew conversio:’?* which regeneration 
or conyersion is a change which follows upon justifica- 
tion: “‘Cum Spiritus Sanctus in illa consolatione novos 
motus et novam vitam afferat, dicitur hee conversio re- 
generatio.”*® Again: ‘ Hac fide petente et accipiente 
remissionem peccatorum (i.e. justification having taken 
place) accipitur Spiritus Sanctus et fit regeneratio, et 
corda in pavoribus erecta incipiunt se subjicere Deo, 
invocare et diligere eum.” * A good life is the test of 
regeneration: “In homine renato per fidem Spiritus 
Sanctus inchoat obedientam.”* “In renatis necesse est 
esse inchoatam obedientiam, et justitiam bone conscientiz 

. renati nondum satisfaciunt leoi, tamen sunt justi et 
placent Deo.”*® The “ Keclesia proprie dicta,” the “ Eccle- 
sia Electa,”’ the “congregatio sanctorum,”’ is also the 
“‘renatorum Hcclesia,” ‘ the “ populus Dei renatus.”?* On 
the other hand, the “non renati’’ are the wicked and 
the unconverted: ‘‘ Lex est injustis posita, i.e. ad coer- 
cendos non renatos.’* ‘* Mens in non renatis plena est 
dubitationum de Deo, corda sunt sine vero timore Dei, 
sine vera fiducia, et habent impetus ingentes contra 
legem Dei.” * 

Melancthon does not indeed, in thus identifying re- 
generation with conversion, restrict the term to adults. 


= Tom. iy. p. 159. ® Thid. p. 558. 
1 Syll. Confess. p. 273. 2 LOM alt. oe 3 Thid. p. 204. 
4 Tom. iv. p. 561. SbiGs 

° Tom. 1. pp. 207, 208. 7 Tom. iv. p. 636. * Tom. i. p. 81. 
9 Thid. p. 164. * Thid. p. 166. 


x2 


308 Documentary Sources. [ Part IT. 


He asserts the sanctification and regeneration of infants, 
‘pro eorum captu,”’”’ and the Augsburgh Confession lays 
it down, “ quod infantes per baptismum Deo commendati 
recipiantur in gratiam Dei, et fiant fili Dei.” But his 
own sense of the term as conversion, and his own express 
limitation of the term to some members of the visible 
Church, show that, though he opens the state to infants 
as a class, and allows them to be capable of such an in- 
ward change—1i. e, of the implantation of a holy disposi- 
tion and character in them—he does not extend the 
inward change to all the individuals of this class, which 
would be practically making the whole visible Church 
regenerate. The indefinite plural “ infants’? was indeed 
by no means identical in Reformation theology with the 
universal “al infants,’ but was used even by the Cal- 
vinistic divines * to denote the admission of the class to 
the privilege of regeneration, as distinct from all the 
individuals of the class, which would have been in express 
contradiction to the doctrine of election. 

Such is Melancthon’s interpretation of the Lutheran 
doctrine of conditional infant regeneration. The inter- 
pretation of Bucer, who ranks in Mosheim as a Lutheran 
divine, was expressly Calvinistic, limiting regeneration 
to the elect.* The particular Lutheran service therefore 
which served as the chief model for our own—the Cologne 
Baptismal Office, being the compilation of Bucer, comes ~ 
to us with a Calvinistic interpretation upon it derived 
from the known doctrine of the compiler. And the 
statement in that service, that the infant is regenerate, 
comes to us with an hypothetical sense stamped upon it 
as the sense of the compiler, who would have condemned 
himself by the literal sense. 

But as we pursue the examination of Lutheran lan- 


2 Tom. i. p. 320. 3 Chapter vi. Part IT. 4 Note 36. 


Cuar. VI.] Documentary Sources. 309 





guage further, and obtain a nearer view of the position 
of the sacraments in Lutheran theology, we find that the 
idea of them as channels and instruments disappears and 
is supplanted by the idea of them as signs and witnesses 
of reconciliation and acceptance with God. The sacra- 
ments are defined by Melancthon as more indeed than 
‘“‘siona professionis,’ which is only a human act—as 
signs of the Divine act of justification, but no more than 
signs. His later language on this subject is substantially 
the same with his earlier; and both editions of the Loc 
Theologict give the same office to the sacraments, though 
they differ in their theory of grace. In the earlier works 
the sacraments are signs only: “nihil signa sunt nisi 
fidei exercendz prnpocvva,’’—“baptismus fidem excitat 
nempe signum divine gratiz ”—“ non justificabat neque 
Johannis neque Christi Baptismus, de signis loquor, sed 
certificabat Johannis lavacrum de predicanda adhuc 
gratia, Christi baptismus testabatur jam collatam esse 
gratiam. In utroque justificabat fides.” * 

In the later work the sacraments are still only signs 
—“signa voluntatis Dei erga nos’’— testimonia addita 
promission gratie.’’* The sacraments, he says, in the 
Apology for the Confession of Augsburgh, are “ signa 
promissionum,” certain witnesses to God’s willingness 
to pardon—“ sentiat hec testimonia non esse fallacia, 
sed tam certa quam si Deus novo miraculo de ccelo pro- 
mitteret se velle ignoscere.”’ In the Disputations 
published in the maturity of his life, baptism is ‘‘ signum 
promisse gratiz: vere justificat baptismus cum ¢o signo 
excitatt credimus nobis propter Christum remitti peccata.’’® 
There is the same substantial account of baptism in the 
later Loci Theologici,—“ Baptismus proprie sacramentum 
dicitur, quia promissioni additus est ut testetur promissio- 


5 Loci Theologici, Ed. 1521, pp. 247, 248, 251. 
6 Tom, i, p. 233. 7 Tom. i. p. 96. 8 Tom. iv. p. 512. 


310 Documentary Sources. [Part IT. 


nem gratiz vere ad hunc pertinere qui baptizatur.”* The 
language of Luther is well known,—‘ Omnia sacramenta 
ad fidem alendam sunt instituta.”’ ‘ Baptismus neminem 
justificat, nec ulli prodest, sed fides in verbum promis- 
sionis, heec enim justificat et implet id quod baptismus 
significat. . . . Nec verum esse potest sacramentis inesse 
vim efficacem justificationis, seu esse ea signa eflicacia 
gratie.”* Baptism in Lutheran theology, then, is the 
visible sign of the Divine pardon, but faith is the instru- 
ment by which that pardon is communicated to us, faith 
is the channel and medium of justification. 

But now we come to another remarkable element in 
the Lutheran doctrine of baptism, viz. the peculiarity of 
the Lutheran definition of faith. Faith was defined as 
faith in the certainty of our own individual salvation. 
The language of Luther on this head is so well known 
that it need not be cited here, and Melancthon, though 
in gentler terms, follows him: “ When the Apostle says 
‘we are justified by faith,’ he wishes thee to decide that 
thy sins are remitted, that thou art justified, that thou 
art accepted,—‘ statuere quod tibi remittantur peccata, 
quod justus, i.e. acceptus reputeris.’”?* “Terrified by 
the voice of the law, let the soul hear the promise in the 
Gospel and decide that its own sins are remitted—statuwat 
sibi remitti peccata gratis... . Why doth this voice 
sound in the Church—‘ Propter Fihum Dei remittuntur 
tibi peccata,’ if thou do not assent to it?”* “ This 
doubt manifestly fights with the doctrine of Paul; 
‘Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.’ 
Doubt brings despair and hatred of God. What is the 
difference between Paul and Atticus if both alike doubt 
that they are in favour with God?”’ “This is the 


9 Postrem. Ed. tom. 1. p. 236. ‘Op. tom. 1 p. 75. 
2 Op. tom. ai. 1p: 76. 
5 Loc. Theol. Postrem. Ed. Op. tom. i. p. 197. 4 Thid. 


5 Tom. t.pa2es. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 311 


difference between Jeremiah and Cicero. Jeremiah is 
certain that he is pleasing to God, statwit se Deo placere : 
Cicero was plunged by calamity into doubt and dark- 
ness.”° ‘Yet some reclaim because they do not under- 
stand what faith is, and imagine that doubt whether we 
are heard and accepted by God is not sin. .. . They bid 
us doubt concerning our pardon; and they bid us doubt 
whether we are in grace’—jubent dubitare an simus in 
gratia.” 

Such being then the Lutheran definition of faith, Luther 
incorporated the sacrament of baptism 7m this doctrine of 
faith, and converted baptism into a seal of assurance, the 
outward token of the individual’s own acceptance with 
God and pledge of his actual salvation. The doctrine of 
assurance simply was this: God has revealed pardon and 
forgiveness in Scripture ; I by an act of faith appropriate 
that pardon to myself, and am certain that I myself am 
accepted and justified. The doctrine of assurance, with 
the sacrament of baptism inserted in it, was this: God 
has revealed pardon and forgiveness in Scripture: 
baptism is the appointed visible sign of this pardon: I 
therefore by an act of faith appropriate this sign to 
myself, and I am certain that baptism is the sign of my 
own pardon and acceptance, that it is the token given 
me by God, that He accounts me in particular just and 
righteous, and will finally save me. Both the simple and 
the baptismal doctrine of assurance rested, indeed, upon 
a bare and arbitrary act of appropriation on the part of 
the individual. The declaration of forgiveness of sin in 
Scripture was not the declaration that he was accepted, 
but he chose to regard it as such: that baptism was the 
visible sign of forgiveness, did not imply that it was the 
sign of his special acceptance, but he chose to give it this 
special meaning. Both doctrines of assurance then rested 


6 Tom. i. p. 205. 7 Thid. pp. 199, 196. 


312 Documentary Sources. [Pane it, 


upon an arbitrary connexion in the mind of the assured 
person; a conveyance to himself absolutely of a gift 
offered to mankind at large, and a conversion of a general 
declaration and a general sign of pardon into a declaration 
and sign of his own pardon in particular. But the 
appropriation by the individual to himself of the visible 
sign was no more arbitrary than his appropriation to 
himself of the declaration : and if, by an act of the will, 
he could resolve that the gift of remission of sin announced 
in Scripture was a special gift of absolute pardon to him, 
he could by the same act of the will resolve that baptism 
was a special sign of that pardon ; a token communicated 
to him, that he in particular was accepted and would be 
saved. 

Accordingly Luther engrafts the sacrament of baptism 
upon the stock of the doctrine of assurance. “ Then 
doth baptism obtain its virtue, and my sins are certainly 
remitted to me, when I believe the word of God saying 
that He does remit them to me.”* “Then is baptism 
fruitful, and as often as I am overwhelmed by the con- 
sciousness of sin, I say, I am baptized; but if I am 
baptized, certain it is that these are promises made to 
myself that I shall enjoy a blessed immortality,—Hgo 
tamen baptizatus sum, quod si baptizatus, certum est ea 
promissa mihi data esse, me beatwm fore ac vitam immor- 
talem anima et corpore possessurum.”* “In baptism 
must be observed, first of all, the Divine promise, ‘ He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved :’ for on this 
depends all our safety. But we must so observe as to 
exercise our faith in it, not doubting that we are saved 
after we are baptized—prorsus non dubitantes nos esse 
salvos postquam sumus baptizati.”* Such doubt of the 
certainty of our salvation wholly neutralized baptism, and 


8 Op. tom.4. p, 75. 9 Tom. v. p. 638. tim. 1a. pets. 


Cuap. VI.]| Documentary Sources. 313 


defeated the very object for which the sacrament was 
designed. “Unless this faith that we are saved is 
present, baptism profiteth not, yea harmeth, and that not 
only at the time it is received, but for the whole of life 
after. For unbelief accuses the Divine promise of false- 
hood, which is the greatest of all sins.” . . . Believe only 
the truth of God, and that will preserve thee: though all 
else fails, it will not leave thee. Thou hast in this what 
can quell the insults of the adversary, the force of temp- 
tation, the horror of death and judgment, and thou canst 
say, ‘God’s promise is true, the seal of which I have 
received in baptism.’ . . . Thou seest how rich is the 
baptized Christian, who cannot, if he will, lose his salva- 
tion for any so great sins unless he doubts. No sins can 
condemn him, but disbelief can.”?* ‘* We must learn that 
God is not uncertain, ambiguous, equivocal, feeble, but 
true and certain, Who saith, ‘I baptize thee, in the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; I absolve thee from 
all thy sins.’ In that word the Father, Son, and Spirit 
do not err, and are not shaken as the wind, but are as a 
rock and Sela, as God is often called in the Psalms, 
because He is a most firm God, upon whom thou mayest 
rely and say—I am saved; I am a son of God, and an 
heir of God, because I am baptized—Sum factus salvus, 
sum filius Dei et heres Dei, quia sum baptizatus.” 4 
Baptism was according to Luther, then, the guarantee 
to the believer, the visible token given him of his own 
individual acceptance with God; and for this reason 
Luther insists upon the duty of a perpetual inward re- 
currence to our baptism: “Semper repetendus baptismus, 
assidue recantanda promissio, jugiter excitanda foven- 
daque fides. . . . The divine promise once pronounced 
over us in baptism, its truth abides till death, and faith 


2 Tom. ii. p. 74. $ [bid ii. p. 75. 4 Tom. vi. p. 553. 


314 Documentary Sources. Beticus he 


in that promise must be nourished by the perpetual 
memory of that promise. . . . For no sins can condemn 
us, but unbelief alone. Let faith but return to the Divine 
promise made to the baptized, and all the rest will be 
absorbed in a moment through that faith.”*® It was this 
recurrence to the baptismal token of the sinner’s own in- 
dividual acceptance with God that constituted the strength 
of the priestly absolution, which was only valid by virtue 
of the revival of the sinner’s assurance of total pardon, of 
which baptism was the seal. ‘ Penitence recalls and 
renews the Sacrament of Baptism; as if the priest said, 
when he absolved the penitent, ‘ Behold, God hath for- 
given thee all thy sins, as He promised before in Bap- 
tism. .. . Which if we believe, without doubt we shall 
have remission of sins: if we believe not, we shall be 
damned. ‘Thus we see that remission of sin is sometimes 
impeded by sins, but is wholly prevented by unbelief, 
and faith alone repairs and renews the interrupted work 
of baptism, and all things depend on faith. ... Tune 
enim vim suam baptismus obtinet, et certo mihi remissa 
sunt peccata cum credo Deo promittenti quod nolit mehr 
peccata imputare, quamvis maxima eorum pars adhuc in 
carne remaneat. [lam autem fidem sequitur peccatorum 
mortificatio.”° Luther thus sent the believer throughout 
his earthly course to the commencing Sacrament of Bap- 
tism, as the outward visible sign and token of his own 
individual acceptance with God. According to the general 
doctrine of assurance the faithful believed in their own 
acceptance with God, and that was the evidence that 
they were accepted ; according to the baptismal doctrine 
of assurance the faithful believed that baptism was the 
sign of their own acceptance with God, and that belief 
was the evidence that baptism was the sign of it, and did 


5 Tom. vi. pp. 74, 75. S‘ Tom. 2p 75. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. S05 


represent this special and particular fact. And Luther 
tells them to go back to this token of their own accept- 
ance, as often as they found their assurance wavering 
and their hearts trembling. But this doctrine of baptism 
was only the doctrine of assurance, with an immaterial 
addition; for it made no real difference whether the 
believer said simply, “I am assured of my own par- 
ticular salvation,’ or whether he said, “I am assured 
that baptism is the token of my own particular salvation.” 
Baptism had no virtue of its own in this whole use and 
employment of it, but only that office which the believer 
himself gave to it by arbitrarily connecting it with his 
own assurance, and making it stand for the token of his 
own individual acceptance. 

Such was the baptismal doctrine of Luther, which 
Archbishop Laurence mistook for the Patristic doctrine, 
quoting the “Salvus sum, quia baptizatus sum,”’’ as if 
it meant, “I have received in baptism grace enabling 
me to be saved;” whereas it really meant, “I have 
received in baptism a pledge and token of my own in- 
dividual salvation.” He was thus misled by a delusive 
resemblance of language into praising, as orthodox and 
Patristic, statements which really contained the full doc- 
trine of assurance. The true explanation shows how 
different in meaning similar verbal statements may be, 
according as they arise upon one basis of doctrine or 
another. 

The baptismal doctrine of Melancthon is‘a mild copy 
of that of Luther. ‘‘ Baptism is called a Sacrament be- 
cause it is added to the promise, so as to witness that the 
promise of grace truly pertains to him who is baptized ; 
and we must think of this witness as if God testified by a 
voice from heaven that He accepted this person. And the 


‘ Bampton Lectures, p. 151. 


316 Documentary Sources. [Parr II. 


baptized person must, when he understands, exert this 
faith: he must believe that he is truly accepted by God 
for Christ’s sake, and is sanctified by the Holy Spirit. 
Thus must baptism be used in after life ; it must every 
day remind us: ‘ Behold, God has testified by this sign 
that thou art received into grace.’ He will not have this 
testimony scorned. Wherefore believe that thou art verily 
uccepted—credas te vere receptum esse—and invoke Him 
with this belief. . . . God declares that He accepts us; 
that declaration the believing conscience embraces.” ® 

Upon an examination then of the Lutheran baptismal 
language, we find, first, that the grace of baptism is, ac- 
cording to the Lutheran doctrine, conditional upon faith 
even in the case of infants, and that this condition issues, 
in the language of Melancthon, in a limitation of regene- 
ration to some members of the visible Church; and, 
secondly, we find that baptism is not an instrument of 
grace in Lutheran doctrine, but only the sign of it; and, 
lastly, that baptism is in Luther’s scheme incorporated 
and absorbed in the doctrine of Assurance, which assur- 
ance simply uses it as its own seal, arbitrarily converting 
it into the sign of the particular salvation of the baptized 
person. | 

To go back then to the argument from documentary 
sources. We have been dealing with the first question 
which arises in that argument, viz. the question of fact. 
Was the assertion of the regeneration of the infant dog- 
matic in the Lutheran baptismal services? The whole 
baptismal doctrine of the Lutherans seems to testify to 
the contrary, and to show that it was not understood as 
such by the Lutherans themselves. It must be admitted, 
that side by side with the service, even at the very date 
of its construction, the Lutheran doctrine of baptism ex- 


8 Tom. i. p. 236. 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 3tF 





patiates most freely, and does not consider itself as com- 
mitted or shackled. Nor perhaps would some of those 
who use the argument— Our Baptismal Service is bor- 
rowed from the Lutherans: the Lutherans held a certain 
doctrine of baptism, therefore we hold the same ;” choose 
themselves, after an inspection of the Lutheran doctrine 
of baptismal assurance, to acknowledge its validity. 

I would indeed, with all deference to many respectable 
writers, demur to the judgment which has given the 
Lutheran such an advantage over the Calvinistic School, 
as a witness to the efficacy of the sacraments. It is true 
that the doctrine of election, in the writings of the latter 
school, limits the recipients of the grace of the sacra- 
ments ; but the sacraments themselves are still largely 
recognized as instruments, and the Calvinistic language 
would appear, upon comparison, to be more sacramental 
than the Lutheran, which is more purely committed to the 
obsignatory view. The moderation of Melancthon and his 
retractation of extreme predestinarianism have naturally 
recommended him to the writers to whom I allude, but his 
representation of the sacraments as signa and testimonia, 
cannot itself be acceptable to those who elevate the sacra- 
ments and follow the teaching of the Fathers. Nor, upon 
this question, is Lutheranism a source from which a stricter 
interpretation of our formularies can be derived. 

We now leave the Lutheran and come to the Ancient 
baptismal offices; and first of all, as in the case of the 
Lutheran, what is the state of the fact with respect to the 
Ancient offices? It must be admitted then that the 
statement of the regeneration of the baptized infant in 
the Ancient offices was understood in the Ancient Church 
literally. But here an important distinction must be 
drawn. ‘This statement, though understood literally, was 
not so understood because it was a literal statement in a 
service, but because the current doctrine of that period 


318 Documentary Sources. [Parr Te 


gave it that literal meaning ; for it must be remembered 
that the very same statement was made in the Ancient 
offices over every baptized Adult, in whose case it was 
understood by the whole Church as hypothetical. The 
statement therefore was not in itself literal in meaning, 
but derived that meaning where it had it from current 
contemporary doctrine. And therefore this statement 
was not in the Ancient Baptismal Offices a dogmatic 
statement, as this very alternative of meanings shows: 
for had it been dogmatic it would not in any case have 
borne an hypothetical meaning, but must in every case 
have borne a literal one. But this statement does not 
come down to us from the Ancient Church stamped with 
the literal sense only; because, as being no statement 
special and appropriate to infants, but one common to 
infants and adults, it had in truth either meaning, hypo- 
thetical or literal, according to the case in which it was 
used.° 

But now the state of the fact with respect to the 
meaning of this statement in the Lutheran and Ancient 
offices being ascertained, another question still remains. 
For whatever may be the state of fact with respect to 
the original documents from which, mediately or imme- 
diately, our own service is derived, we have still to con- 
sider the conclusion which is to be drawn from the fact, 
or the solidity and justice of the general argument from 
documentary sources. Are compiled services necessarily 
to be interpreted by the services from which they are 
compiled? Does a.service, because it is constructed upon 


¥ Though it makes no difference in the argument, the statement 
being the same, even if the services were distinct, it may be men- 
tioned that the ancient baptismal offices were not distinct generally, 
but that there was one service in common for adults and infants ; 
and that both came under the same statement in the same service— 
the “ Qui te regeneravit.” 


Cuap. VI.] Documentary Sources. 319 


the model of another anterior service, necessarily borrow 
the meaning of the latter in every case, and use all its 
phrases and its statements in the very sense in which 
they are used in the older formulary? No; because it 
is quite open to a Church in constructing a new service 
to avail itself of old liturgical material without binding 
itself to the exact sense in which this language in its 
original was used. Our Communion Service would 
supply an indisputable instance of a principle, which 
would apply to the other service as well, viz. that the 
Church in adopting the language of an older formulary 
may adopt it with the accommodation which a new doc- 
trinal ground requires. The meaning then of this or that 
phrase, or piece of language in a compiled service does 
not depend absolutely upon the meaning which it had in 
the original document from which it was borrowed, but 
it depends upon the doctrine of the Church which has 
compiled that service and borrowed that liturgical lan- 
guage. In the Ancient offices the baptismal statement, 
as made over an infant, had a literal meaning, because 
the baptismal regeneration of all infants was laid down 
positively then in the current theology of the Church. 
But in our service this statement wants this doctrinal 
support and interpretation from without, and stands simply 
upon its own ground as a statement in a service, in which 
capacity it has not necessarily a literal meaning. 

When the remark is made then that in none of the 
Ancient offices is the statement of the regeneration of 
the infant more positive than it is in our own, the truth 
of it may be admitted, but the fact is not to the purpose. 
It by no means follows from it that our Church uses this 
statement in the same exclusively lteral meaning in 
which it was used in the Ancient offices; because she is 
not bound to the sense which accompanied it in the ori- 
ginal document, but only to her own sense as indicated by 


320 Documentary Sources. 


her own doctrine. Contemporary baptismal doctrine gave 
a literal sense to this statement as made over the infant 
in the Ancient offices; but her own baptismal doctrine 
does not give it that exclusive sense in her own service, 
but leaves it open to an hypothetical one. The state- 
ment in the service reflects the doctrine of the Com- 
munion. The doctrine of the Roman Church is that of 
unconditional infant regeneration in baptism, and there- 
fore this statement in the Roman service has a literal 
meaning. The doctrine of the Irish Church, as laid 
down in the Irish Articles, was that the regeneration of 
infants in baptism was conditional;’ and therefore in the 
Trish service this statement was hypothetical. The doc- 
trine of the English Church is open and neutral on this 
point, and therefore allows of either interpretation. In 
each of these cases the doctrine of the Church decides 
the sense of the statement in the service. One who has 
subscribed to it in a doctrinal formulary must attach a 
doctrinal meaning to it in a service: one who has con- 
tradicted it in a doctrinal formulary cannot attach a 
doctrinal meaning to it in a service: one who has sub- 
scribed to no doctrinal proposition either way is free to 
adopt either aspect of it. 


1 Upon final perseverance. “ A true lively justifying faith and 
the sanctifying Spirit of God is not extinguished, or vanisheth 
away in the regenerate, either finally or totally.” Inish Art. 37. 


CHAPTER VII 
BAPTISMAL LANGUAGE OF CALVINISM 


THoucH the question before us is one which must be 
decided by the language of our formularies, a certain 
weight is still due to current and established opinion, 
backed by the best authorities. An opinion of this kind 
is embodied in the dictum, with which we are all of us so 
familiar, that “the Church of England tolerates Cal- 
vinism.” ‘‘I know not,” says Bishop Horsley, “ what 
hinders but that the highest supralapsarian Calvinist may 
be as good a churchman as an Arminian; and if the 
Church of England in her moderation opens her arms to 
both, neither can with a very good grace desire that the 
other should be excluded.”? This is a dictum then which 
I may venture to argue upon, as, though an informal, a 
generally admitted premiss; and therefore before enter- 
ing upon the regular argument of precedent, which is 
reserved for another chapter, let us examine what this 
current saying amounts to, and to what it commits those 
who agree with it. 

The current dictum then that “the Church of England 
tolerates Calvinism” concedes the whole claim which we 


1 Primary Charge, 1806.—The statement in Art. 16, that “we 
may depart from grace given, may be subscribed by the Calvinist 
who admits the fact of falls from grace, only denying the totality 
of them in the elect, in whom there is asserted to remain through- 
out a ‘radix occulta que deinde pullulat.’’”’ Calvin, on 1 John 
li. 9. 

¥ 


322 Baptismal Language of Calvinism. [Parr II. 


have been discussing, the claim, viz. of the liberty to 
interpret the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service 
hypothetically. The Calvinistic School maintains that 
the elect alone, or those who will finally persevere, can 
be regenerate ;” nor is this a doctrine of subordinate 
rank in the teaching of this school, but it occupies the 
very front of its doctrinal language. This is the Cal- 
vinistic School’s sense of the term “ regenerate,” without 
which sense the word has no place in its theology. 

But this being the doctrine of the Calvinistic School, 
it is evident that this school cannot possibly accept the 
statement in the baptismal service literally, which would 
be simply to say that every baptized infant was one of the 
elect and would finally persevere; and that therefore the 
alternative lies between the admissibility of the hypo- 
thetical interpretation of it, and the total exclusion of 
this school from the Church of England. If the hypo- 
thetical interpretation is not admitted, it is untrue to say 
that the Calvinistic School is, because in that case this 
statement of itself absolutely and directly excludes this 
school. On the other hand, if the Calvinistic School is 
admitted, it is untrue to say that the literal interpretation 
of this statement is imposed, which it ipso facto is not. 
We cannot therefore consistently go on using this current 
dictum about the “ Church tolerating Calvinism,” and at 
the same time stand up for the necessity of the literal 


2 On the strength of two Calvinistic divines, Ward and Dave- 
nant, having, for a particular purpose, maintained a kind of re- 
generation which did not imply indefectibility, it has been sometimes 
assumed that the indefectibility of regenerating grace 1s not a regu- 
lar tenet of the Calvinistic School. But in the first place the opi- 
nion of two individual writers does not affect the doctrine of the 
school, which is quite clear on this point. In the next place, though 
these two divines held a kind of regeneration, which did not imply 
indefectibility, they expressly said that they did not by that kind 
of regeneration mean true regeneration. See p. 160. 


Cuap. VII. |] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 323 


interpretation of this statement; but we must face the 
alternative of excluding the Calvinist, if we enforce this 
interpretation, or giving up the necessity of this inter- 
pretation, if we admit the Calvinist. 

Few, I think, will venture upon the former alternative ; 
should any however be disposed to do so, I will put before 
them in few words the baptismal position of the Calvinist 
_—the position, I mean, which a Calvinist may hold with 
respect to baptism, and yet hold in its integrity all that is 
essential to Calvinism. 

The Calvinistic School then holds, in the first place, 
that regeneration is a change of which infants are, in the 
very state of infancy, capable. Bishop Bethell has 
exceeded the truth in laying it down, as part of Cal- 
vinism, that regeneration dates from the moment of the 
“ effectual call,”? or the conscious conversion of the man 
as an adult. That may have been the practical tendency 
of Calvinism as a popular system, but the great divines of 
the Calvinistic School have always assigned an earlier 
ordinary date to regeneration. They have uniformly, and 
without any hesitation, laid down the principle that 
infants as infants were capable of regeneration ; that they 
were susceptible of a real and bond fide spiritual change, 
wrought in them by the Holy Spirit, and admitted of 
having implanted in them a present principle or root of 
spiritual life, though the manifestation of it was deferred 
to a subsequent age, when either the natural growth of 
reason or a particular act of Divine Providence elicited 
and developed it. “We deny,” says Calvin, “that 
infants cannot be regenerated by the power of God, in a 
way as easy and ready to Him as it is incomprehensible 
and wonderful to us. . . . Why cannot they receive that 
grace in part now which they will enjoy in such plenitude 
hereafter? .. . It is true that faith and repentance are 
not as yet formed in them, but they have implanted within 

EZ 


324 Baptismal Language of Calvinism. | Parv II. 


them, by the secret operation of the Spirit, the latent 
seed of both.”* ‘It is true,” says Peter Martyr, “that 
infants cannot actually believe, but they have infused into 
them the Holy Spirit, which is the root of faith, hope, 
charity, and all those virtues which are afterwards called 
forth and manifested in the children of God when their 
age allows. Infants, therefore, can in a certain sense be 
called faithful, just as they can be called rational. They 
cannot actually reason, but they have a soul which will 
reason and exert itself in the various sciences, faculties, 
and arts when they grow up. In the same way, they can 
have the Holy Spirit, even while they are infants.*.. . 
Wherefore in adults we require faith expressed and in 
acts ; in infants we maintain an inchoate faith, existing in 
its principle and root, which is the Holy Spirit, the 
source of faith and all the virtues.”* “ We believe and 
teach,” says Bucer, “a real regeneration and a true 
adoption of infants, and an actual operation of the Holy 
Spirit in them, according to their measure and capacity.” ° 
Whitaker, the star of Hlizabethan Calvinism, adopts 
Peter Martyr’s position of an inchoate faith in infants, 
“who have both the act and the habit of faith in the 
seed, i.e. the Holy Spirit;” and denies on this ground 
the charge of Bellarmine, “that we baptize infants only 
to be members of the visible Church; because, though | 
they are baptized as infants, they will not always be © 
infants, but will, if life is granted them, feel when grown 
up the virtue of that baptism which they received as 
infants.”’ ‘Infants,’ says Zanchius, “are not, because 


3 Inst. iv. 16. 18—20. 4 Loc. Comm. iv. 8, 14. 

5 Thbid. p. 15. 6 Seript. Angl. p. 655. 

7“ Pueri habent tum actwm, tum habitum fidei in suo semine, 
i.e. in Spiritu Sancto... Petrus Martyr satis esse indicat ut dica- 
mus eos qui servantur, cum sint de peculio Domini per parentes et 
ecclesiam, Sancto Spiritu perfundi, qui radix sit fidei, spei et chari- 


Cuap. VII. ] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 325 


they cannot believe on account of their immaturity, 
therefore destitute of the Spirit of faith by which they 
are regenerated, any more than they are without reason, 
simply because they have not come to the use of reason.” ® 
“ Regeneration,” says Junius, ‘‘is to be considered in one 
way, aS in its foundation, i.e. Christ, or in habit; in 
another way, in ourselves, or in act. The first regene- 
ration, which is as it were the cause of which the second 
is the effect, takes place in infants.”’* Burgess proves 
the infant’s capacity for “initial regeneration” by the 
same argument that the writers above quoted use. “ This 
cought not to seem strange to any, for just so it 1s in the 
course of nature. So soon as the reasonable soul is 
infused there is in some sense a rational life. But how? 
The soul is there, and in that soul are included all the 
principles of reason; but the soul doth not send forth 
those principles into action (unless in some insensible 
manner by little and little preparing the infant unto 
human action) till afterwards that the senses begin to 
act; yet, forasmuch as the infant hath not at that time 
the actual use of reason, for this cause we call the further 
perfection of his natural principles, by tract of time 
attained, when reason puts itself into act, actual rational 
life; and we term the same life, in respect of the first 
degree and principles thereof, which together with the 
reasonable soul, in the first infusion thereof, it received— 
initial life.’+ ‘Christian infants,” says Aynsworth, 


tatis et omnium virtutum, quas postea exerit et declarat in filiis 
Dei, cum per etatem licet.” Whitaker, Prelect. de Sacr. p. 284. 
The Calvinistic divines objected to the actual “infused habit” of 
the Schoolmen, and preferred the “ radix habitus;” though the 
two are substantially the same. 

8 Explic. Epist. ad Eph. p. 222. 

9 Quoted by Burgess, p. 178. 

1 Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, p. 242. 


326 Baptismal Language of Calvinism. | Part II. 


“have the graces they speak of, though not actually or by 
way of declaration to others; yet they have, through the 
work of the Spirit, the seed and beginning of faith, 
virtually and by way of inclination; so that they be not 
wholly destitute of faith, regeneration, &c., though it be a 
thing hid and unknown to us after what manner the Lord 
worketh these in them.” ” 

The regeneration then of infants, while infants, being 
maintained by the Calvinistic School, how and by what 
means does this regeneration take place according to the 
teaching of this school? ‘The Calvinistic divines then 
made, in the first place, the general statement that 
regeneration was by baptism. “Baptism is God’s 
ordinary instrument to wash and renew us,” says Calvin. 
“The efficacy of the Holy Spirit is present in baptism to | 
cleanse and regenerate us.”* All the leading Calvinistic 
divines of the Reformation make the same fundamental 
statement, and we find the position formally laid down in 
the Confessions of the Calvinistic Churches.* 

It is true that when we enter into the particulars of the 
language of these divines, and examine their explanation 
of this general statement, when they are expounding their 


2 Censure, p. 48. 

3 “ Baptismum ordinarium Dei instrumentum asserimus ad nos 
lavandos et renovandos.” ‘Tract. Theol. 258. “Convenit non 
inanes esse figuras [sacramenta] sed re ipsa prestari quicquid fig- 
urant. In baptismo adesse Spiritus efficaciam, ut nos abluat et 
regeneret.” Epist.p.82. ‘ Quia mortua non sunt Spiritus Sancti 
organa, vere per baptismum efficit ac preestat Deus quod figurat.” 
Tract. Theol. p. 683. ‘“‘ Queerit rursum, si sacramenta sunt organa, 
quibus efficaciter agit Deus, suamque nobis gratiam testatur et 
obsignat, cur negamus per baptismi lavacrum renasci homines :— 
qua i hoc a nobis negari non ipse confingat.” Ibid. ‘Quod Bap- 
tismo nos ablui docet Paulus, ideo est, quod illic nobis ablutionem — 
nostram testatur Deus, et simul efficit quod figurat.” In Eph. v. 26. 

* Note 33. 


CHapP. VIL] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 327 


doctrine at large, we find that baptism is more generally 
considered rather the seal of regeneration than the actual 
instrument of it. The root of faith and holiness which is 
maintained to be previously implanted in the infant, as 
the condition of his regeneration in baptism is contem- 
plated as being itself his regeneration really ; of which 
subsequent baptism is rather regarded as the seal. But 
though they incline to the obsignatory view, the instru- 
mental has still a large place in the language of the 
Calvinistic divines, who alternate indeed from one to the 
other, as if unconscious of any particular difference 
between the two. ‘ Baptism,” says Calvin, as just 
quoted, “is God’s ordinary instrument to change and 
regenerate us.” ‘God uses such means and instruments 
as He thinks fit, and as He feeds our bodies by bodily 
nourishment, so He feeds our faith by the sacraments.” * 
“God really gives in the sign what He figures by it, nor 
is it a sign without an effect. These instruments do not 
work by any intrinsic virtue, nor does God resign His 
place to external symbols, or give up at all His own 
primary operation; the cause of justification is not held 
within the sacraments, as if they were vessels, but God 
performs inwardly what they figure outwardly.”° “The 
sacraments are to be esteemed as nothing but instrumental 
causes of grace. . . if there are any who deny that there 
is contained in the sacraments the grace which they 
figure, we condemn them.’ “ We take away nothing 
from the efficacy of the sacraments on the part of God.” ’ 
“For unless the truth of the thing, or, what is the same, 
the offer, were conjoined with the sign, this phrase would 
be improper, ‘ Baptism is the washing of the soul, Bap- 


tismus est lavacrum anime’ . .. Some labour to diminish 
the force of this eulogium of baptism (‘That He might 
5 Tnstit. iv. 14. 12. & Thid. 16, U7: 


7 Tract. Theol. pp. 256, 257. 


328 Baptismal Language of Calvinism. | Part II. 


cleanse it with the washing of water, Eph. v. 26), lest too 
much be given to the sign; but they do wrongly. For 
first the Apostle does not teach that it is the sign 
which cleanses, but declares that it is God’s work. It is 
God, therefore, who cleanses, nor is it right that this 
honour should be transposed to the sign, or shared by the 
sign. But it is not absurd that God should use the sign 
as an instrument, signo Deum tanquam organo utr. Not 
that the virtue of God is shut up in the sign, wnclusa sit 
in signo: but that He imparts it to us, in accommodation 
to our weakness, by such a stay. Some think that this is 
taking away from the Holy Spirit that which belongs to 
Him, and which Scripture everywhere vindicates. But 
they are mistaken. Tor God so acts through the sign, as 
that the whole efficacy of the sign still depends on the Holy 
Spirit. Thus nothing more is attributed to the sign than 
that 1t is a subordinate instrument, useless indeed in 
itself, and only useful in so far as 1t borrows its force from 
without,—aliunde vim suam mutuatur.’*® ‘The sacra- 
ments,” says Beza, “are not naked signs. In baptism 
are not only signified, but offered and presented, remission 
of sin and regeneration, though these are not received by 
all the baptized.”* “The sacraments,’ says Chamier, 
“are not only signs, but pledges and instruments. A 
pledge is a kind of sign indeed, but it is the most power- 
ful kind of sign, because it signifies a thing to which the 
receiver has a right... . And yet inasmuch as some 
pledges do nothing but affect the mind of the giver and 
receiver, we add that the sacraments are instruments by 
which that which is signified is effected, as when Christ 
breathed on the Apostles, and that breath both signified 
the Spirit and gave Him .. . Inward sanctification is 
the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the mind of him who 


8 In Eph. v. 26. ® Acta Coll. Mont. p. 372. 
I 


Cuap. VII.] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 329 


receives the sacrament, producing a secret change of his 
will and understanding’ . . . We both (Protestants and 
Roman Catholics) agree that the sacraments are signs, 
but efficacious signs .. . though this efficacy is not primary 
but instrumental, as the Gallic Confession hath it, ‘God 
works through them by the virtue of the Holy Spirit :’ if 
God works through the sacraments, the sacraments are 
God’s instruments, not physical indeed, but moral, not 
operating in the soul by virtue inserted in the thing 
itself, and yet efficacious instruments, and causes of grace 
ina certain way.”” “ By baptism, as by an imstrument,” 
says Zanchius, “is communicated remission, regeneration, 
and admission to covenant with God... Baptism was 
instituted to be the instrument for this purpose.”’* “ The 
sacraments,” says Whitaker, “‘ are instruments and means 
by which the Holy Spirit works grace in us . . . though 
this virtue is not in the sacraments themselves, but in the 
Holy Spirit acting and working through them . . . The 
sacraments effect grace as means and instruments in their 
way ... Wesay that by sacraments, as by means and 
instruments appointed by God, are applied to us the 
merits of the death and passion of Christ.”* “As in 
human agency,” says Junius, “ the internal act of the 
mind and the external act of the body is one human opera- 
tion; so in baptism the inward washing and the outward 
are one Divine operation.” ® 

But while the Calvinistic divines called baptism the 


1 De Sacram. in Gen. p. 13. * Ibid. pp. 25, 27, 28. 

3 Explic. in Ep. ad Eph. pp. 217, 221. 

4 Prelect. de Sacr. pp. 6, 7, 54. 

> Quoted by Burgess, p. 176. Ward’s general remark deserves 
notice.—* Quidni igitur dicamus hoc fieri virtute baptismi instru- 
mentaliter et organice. Siquidem Calvinus Bucerus et alu ex nos- 
tris theologis in hunc modum sepe loquuntur.” Ward ap. Gataker, 
De Bapt. Infant. vi et efficacia, p. 163. 


330 Laptismal Language of Calvinism. [Part II. 





instrument of regeneration, and regarded infants as 
capable of being regenerated, they differed widely from 
other divines when it came to the question whether all 
infants or only some were regenerate in baptism. The 
doctrine of Election necessarily confined this benefit to 
the elect; and this condition is always understood, and 
this reserve is always made in the statements which 
the Calvinistic divines give of the general doctrine, or of 
the grace of the sacrament as such. Nor does Calvin on 
this account justly incur the charge brought against him 
by Archbishop Laurence, who attributes his general state- 
ment of the grace of the sacrament to a political motive, 
the wish, viz. to “promote unity and concord among 
the Reformation divines.” ‘ No man perhaps,” he says, 
“was ever less scrupulous in the adoption of general 
expressions, but perhaps no man adopted them with more 
mental reservations than Calvin.” *® A general acknow- 
ledgment, however, of the grace of the sacrament, leaving 
open the condition upon which it is received, whether that 
of Election or any other, is no fallacious form of statement, 
but a strictly sound and legitimate one, and one that we 
cannot do without in laying down the doctrine of the 
sacraments.7 

What is the position then in which a Calvinist, holding 


6 Bampton L. p. 375. 

* Sacramentum enim definitur ew legitimo usu et fine et baptis- 
mus Aourpoy madtyyeveoias, i. e. lavacrum regenerationis dicitur; non 
tamen regenerantur omnes qui aqua baptismal lavantur, sed ex 
parte Dei offerenti sic vocatur.” Whitaker, Przlect. de Sacr. p. 10. 

“ Effectum Baptismi a me in dubium revocari dicit quia a Pre- 
destinatione eum suspendo . .. Tantum dixi non promiscue in 
omnibus operari Dei Spiritum, sed quemadmodum solos electos in 
fidem illuminat, sic etiam efficere ne frustra utantur sacramentis 
.... Cavillari desmat me dubium facere Baptismi effectum, ubi 
ex fonte electionis manare ostendo, quod in sacramentis proficiunt, 
quibus peculiariter datum est.” Calvin, Tractatus Theol. p. 684. 


Cuap. VII.] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 33 


the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as thus stated, 
stands with respect to the statement pronounced over 
every baptized infant in the Baptismal Service, that 
“this child is regenerate”? His position is this. He 
believes that some of the infants over whom this is pro- 
nounced really are regenerate, but not that all are. He 
acknowledges a basis of actual fact upon which this 
statement is made, but he does not allow the fact to be 
co-extensive with the statement; and therefore as a 
statement made of all baptized infants he understands 
this statement hypothetically, while he does not at the 
same time regard the regeneration of infants as hypothe- 
tical altogether, but as true im fact of some. According 
as he inclines, indeed, to the obsignatory or the instru- 
mental view of baptism, he considers this regeneration 
to have preceded baptism and been sealed in the sacra- 
ment, or to have been consequent upon baptism; but in 
either case he admits a basis of fact for the statement over 
every child that it “is regenerate ;” some infants, of the 
whole number of which this is asserted, being believed by 
him to be at that time regenerate in fact. 

But for the purpose of testing the relations of Calvinism 
to this statement in the Infant Baptismal Service, it is 
only legitimate and just to take that form of Calvinism 
which is, to use a well-understood epithet, most sacra- 
mental; which attributes most efficacy to the Sacra- 
ment, maintaining at the same time the complete inte- 
grity of the Calvinistic doctrine. The instrumental effi- 
cacy of baptism was, as has been shown, extensively 
asserted by the main body of Calvinistic divines, who 
however combined that language with another which was 
in larger use with them, viz. the obsignatory representa- 
tion of the sacrament. But there was a school of Cal- 
vinists who did not divide their language, but held ex- 
clusively the instrumental view of baptism. ‘They dif- 


332 Baptismal Language of Calvinism. [Part I. 


fered from the main body of the Reformation divines in 
one particular. The main body of Reformation divines 
held that rationale of infant baptism which applied to the 
infant the adult condition of regeneration, viz. that of a 
previously implanted faith ; and, as the next step, pro- 
ceeded to regard this previously implanted faith as itself 
the regeneration of the infant, of which baptism was the 
seal. But the school of Calvinists, to which I have 
referred, discarded this whole machinery of accommo- 
dated adult qualification, and admitted the infant to the 
grace of baptism upon his own basis as an infant. Upon 
this simpler plan then, there was no prevenient grace 
required for the infant, and baptism was the very first 
entrance into grace, before which there was nothing but 
pure nature. But while this school of Calvinists main- 
tained that baptism was, in Hooker’s language, “to our 
sanctification here a step that hath not any before it,” 
they also held that baptism was this only to the elect ; 
and regarding the sacrament as the instrument of rege- 
neration, wherever regeneration took place, they yet 
limited the reception of this grace by the doctrine of Pre- 
destination. ‘ This school,” says Dr. Pusey, ‘‘ made the 
indefectibility of grace the rule by which they measured 
the declarations of God. As many as held that none 
could fall finally from grace given, were obliged to hold 
that none but those who should finally be saved were 
regenerated in baptism. Nor did they wish to conceal 
that this was their only ground. Being fully persuaded 
of the truth of their first principles, they held unhesita- 
tingly that the general declarations of Holy Scripture 
[they added also of the Fathers] must be limited by this 
known truth. As they expressed it, all ‘ elect children’ 
received the gifts of the Holy Spirit; the rest were 
washed with water only. These in some respects re- 
tained the honour of the sacrament of Baptism; in 


Crap. VII.) Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 333 


another began to derogate from it. They retained it, in 
that they held that all whoever received regeneration ordi- 
narily, received it through the sacrament of Baptism... . 
they imagined no other entrance into the Lord’s house than 
the door which He had appointed. They derogated from 
that sacrament in that they could no longer consistently 
hold that the benefits imparted were by virtue of our 
Saviour’s institution. . . . but they were obliged to as- 
cribe it to the secret counsel of God, giving effect to the 
outward ordinance when and to whom He willed.””* Dr. 
Pusey ranks as belonging to this school Daneau and 
Chamier among the reformed divines; and Archbishop 
Usher, Bishop White, Taylor, Burgess, and others among 
our own. ‘All elect infants,” says Burgess, “do ordi- 
narily receive from Christ in baptism the spirit of rege- 
neration, as the soul and the first principle of spiritual 
life, for the first solemn initiation unto Christ, and for 
their future actual renovation in God’s good time. .. . 
Even in the moment of baptism all orthodox divines do 
allow of some present efficacy of baptism upon infants.” ° 

The list of divines who held this specially sacramental 
form of Calvinism would not, in my own judgment, be 


8 Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, Ist ed. p.144. The writer 
continues : ‘“ Most of these however were still able to use owr formu- 
aries, although not in their original sense, since our baptismal 
formulary was immediately derived from the Lutheran Church, 
and this with the Fathers held the universal regeneration of bap- 
tized infants. Yet since man could not tell who of these infants 
were elect and who not, they held that these words could be used 
by a sort of charity to each infant. And this excuse Hooker seems 
to suggest .. . ‘ We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth, 
&c.’” If the statement here that these divines “were still able to 
use our formularies,’ means that they were able to do so by a fair 
liberty, not by an unfair licence; the writer is an authority in 
favour of the Gorham Judgment. 

9 Bapt. Reg. of Hlect Infants, pp. 231, 169. 


334 Laptismal Language of Calvinism, {Part II. 


incorrectly extended by the addition of the name of 
Hooker, who expressly holds indeed that baptism is “ to 
our sanctification here a step that hath not any before 
it,”’ but as clearly assumes as the condition of this sanc- 
tification in baptism, not a previous inward grace in- 
deed, but a previous act of election on God’s part. For 
the truth that Predestination is the original condition of 
life, is assumed in the very qualification and caution that 
“ Predestination bringeth not to life without the grace of 
external vocation wherein our baptism is implied ;” and 
that election precedes sanctification in baptism is assumed 
in the very doubt whether baptism is not the seal of 
election. The doctrine of the school of Calvinists to 
which I have been referring was that nothing except 
election preceded the baptismal grace—no previous in- 
ward grace or operation of the Spirit, but only an ante- 
cedent decree of God. The language of Hooker is to the 
same effect, and, though vindicating the grace of bap- 
tism as the first wiwward grace, before which no operation 
of the Spirit has passed upon the soul, still assumes, 
as the condition of the reception of this grace, the 
Divine Predestination and election of the person to eter- 
nal life. 

What is the position, then, in which the Calvinist of 
the School to which I am now referring, 1. e. who regards 
baptism as the instrument of regeneration, but the in- 
strument of it only to the elect, stands with respect to 
the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service? It is 
evident that, though he declines accepting that state- 


1 Eccl. Pol. v. lx. 3. “ A seal perhaps to the grace of election 
before received, but to our sanctification here a step that hath not 
any beforeit.” Burgess remarks, “‘ He makes no ‘ perhaps’ of this, 
that such as partake of the grace of baptism are elected; but only 
of this, that they do ‘ perhaps’ receive baptism as a seal of grace 
of election.” Bapt. Reg. of Elect Infants p. 61. See Note 38. 


Cuap. VII. |] Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 335 


ment literally, the reason which prevents him from doing 
so is no want of belief in the grace of the sacrament 
itself, because he believes that it is the instrument of 
regeneration to the elect, just as much as others believe 
that it is the instrument of regeneration to all. The 
reason which prevents him from accepting this statement 
literally, is his doctrine of election alone which limits the 
reception of that grace to some, who are yet as truly re- 
generated in baptism according to his doctrine, as all are 
according to another doctrine. The hypothetical inter- 
pretation has a basis of fact in his mind both with regard 
to the regeneration of infants, and with regard to bap- 
tism as the instrument of it: and he only supposes of all 
what he believes to be true of some, in consequence of a 
limit, inherent in another doctrine held by him, which 
prohibits the wniversal reception as a fact, and only allows 
it as a supposition. 

Ought then such a person as this to be excluded from 
the ministry of the Church, on account of such hypo- 
thetical interpretation of the statement in the Infant 
Baptismal Service? I have shown in a former chapter 
that the Formularies of the Church do not require such 
exclusion, and I have brought forward in this an informal 
but still generally received and current dictum in our 
Church, which confirms that conclusion. I have appealed 
in this chapter to the practical consent of Churchmen as 
seconding the conclusion built upon purely formulistic 
grounds. I have appealed to an established standard of 
orthodoxy, to a certain outline of comprehensiveness 
which is in everybody’s mind, expressed in the saying 
of Bishop Horsley; according to which standard and 
outline the Calvinistic School is not excluded from the 
pale of our Church, or its ministry. Especially would it 
be contrary to that standard that such a Calvinist as I 
have been describing, should be excluded. Yet it must 


336 ©=©—6- Baptismal Language of Calvinism. 


be seen that nothing short of a full and complete recogni- 
tion of the hypothetical interpretation of the statement 
in the Infant Baptismal Service, can effect his inclusion : 
for outside he must stand so long as the literal sense of 
this statement is enforced. Let him believe as strongly 
as he may that baptism is the instrument of regeneration, 
he cannot possibly assert that it is this to all infants, 
because this assertion would be in contradiction to a 
fundamental tenet of Calvinism. There is no option, 
therefore, if we hold the current dictum which has been 
appealed to in this chapter, but that of opening the sense 
of the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service, and 
allowing the hypothetical interpretation of it. 


CHAPTER VIII 
ARGUMENT OF PRECEDENT 


THE weight due to precedent, i.e. to what individual 
divines or schools of divines have publicly and in writing 
maintained within the Church, without legal censure,— 
the weight, I say, due to a Church’s de facto toleration, 
which may be called part of her practical tradition, when 
it contradicts and comes into collision with a documentary 
test, is an important question, into which I need not 
enter in the present treatise. I only appeal to precedent 
as confirming a conclusion drawn from our actual formu- 
laries. Because it unquestionably adds to the weight of 
a result drawn from the Formularies of the Church, to 
see it embodied in the uninterrupted practice of the 
Church, which is a living authoritative comment upon 
the formularies. 

The argument of precedent divides itself mto two 
heads. The first is the evidence of what was the actual 
force and value of the statement in the Baptismal Service, 
as a piece of language, at the time of the construction of 
that Service. And this is not the argument of precedent 
properly, though it figures under this general head for 
convenience sake, so much as an inquiry into a question 
of language. The second is the argument of precedent 
properly, i.e. that a certain construction of this statement 
has de facto been permitted in the Church from the date 
of the compilation of our Prayer Book to the present 
day. 

Z 


338 Argument of Precedent. [Parr IL. 


1. First we have the evidence of the actual value of 
the statement in the Baptismal Service at the time of the 
construction of that service. By value, I mean the force 
of the statement, in the situation in which it occurs, as a 
piece of language at the time; and a received and recog- 
nized mode of understanding it which was contemporary 
with its adoption. We have the evidence of this fact 
first in the obvious animus and design of the very com- 
pilers of our Prayer Book. 

The argument of the “sense of the compiler” must be 
distinguished from the argument of the “sense of the 
imposer.” The argument of the animus imponentis is a 
futile and nugatory argument ; because, in order to arrive 
at any conclusion by means of it, we must first find out 
who the imponens is; and the imponens, when we search 
for him, vanishes into space. We cannot fix upon any 
imponens but the Church herself, and the only evidences 
of the animus of the Church, are her formularies. The 
argument of the animus imponentis thus brings us round 
immediately to the letter of the formularies, and there 
leaves us. 

But the argument of the sense of the compiler is a 
solid and valid argument if used witha proper distinction. 
The sense of the compiler is of no authority in itself, nor 
can it of itself affect the meaning of a statement in a 
formulary ; because as soon as the formulary is made, we 
must then interpret it according to the authorized rules 
of language, and the constructor has no more right than 
any other person to give his own meaning to it. But 
though the sense of the compiler is of no authority in 
itself, it is valid evidence to the fact of the force of a 
particular statement as a piece of language in the com- 
piler’s day. For if it can be shown that the compiler 
either held himself or allowed as tenable, a certain doctrine 
which is inconsistent with the literal construction of a 


Cuap. VIII. | Argument of Precedent. 339 


particular statement, inserted by him in a formulary, that 
is good evidence that the statement admitted in the 
compiler’s day of a different construction from the literal 
one; because that otherwise he would not for the most 
obvious reasons have inserted it. Thus, to make the 
supposition, had the compilers of the Prayer Book been 
Calvinists, and held that the elect only could be regenerate, 
it would then follow directly that the statement in the 
Baptismal Service—“ this infant is regenerate,” could 
not have borne a necessarily literal meaning at that time, 
because, if it had, they would not have inserted it in con- 
demnation of themselves. Or, to make another less 
strong supposition, if it could be shown that the com- 
pilers of our Prayer Book considered Calvinism tenable, 
and acquiesced in it as held by others, even that would 
be valid evidence to the same point; because they would 
not have inserted the statement in question had it 
necessarily borne a construction condemnatory of a doc- 
trine which they allowed. 

The value, force and acceptation of a statement at a 
particular time, like the meaning of a word, is thus a 
point determinable by evidence; and the sense of the 
compiler, or the construction which the compiler con- 
sidered admissible, where it can be ascertained, is good 
evidence to this point. 

To apply then this principle of evidence to the case 
before us. Whatever may have been the personal belief 
of our Reformers, and whether or not they held Calvinistic 
doctrine themselves, it is very certain that they acquiesced 
in it as held by others; that they were on intimate reli- 
gious terms with leading divines of this School, admitted 
them to their counsels, and asked their advice and 
criticism upon the very construction of this Prayer Book 
itself. The position that the elect alone could be regene- 
rate, was a well-known and conspicuous tenet in theology 

zZ 2 


340 Argument of Precedent. [Parr II. 


at the date of the construction of our Prayer Book, and 
the maxim Sacramenta in solis electis efficiunt quod figu- 
rant, was the maxim at that time of a large and promi- 
nent School of Reformers. The Institutes of Calvin had 
been published then fifteen years, and this doctrine was 
known by the advocacy of, among others, Peter Martyr 
and Bucer. But the doctrine being thus known, the 
compilers of our Prayer Book put themselves in intimate 
relation with the maintainers of this doctrine, and Cran- 
mer, in 1549, seated Peter Martyr at Oxford, and Bucer 
at Cambridge, as Regius Professors of Divinity, and laid 
the new Prayer Book before them for the benefit of their 
criticism, previous to its revision. He also invited, in 
1552, Calvin, with Bullinger and Melancthon, to a con- 
ference in England for the preparation of a general 
confession of faith for the Protestant Churches. 

But such being the relations in which the compilers of 
our Prayer Book stood to the Calvinistic School, this 
fact has a plain bearing upon the question before us, 
because, as has been said, it is not only the doctrine which 
the compiler himself holds, but the doctrine which he 
considers tenable, and in which he acquiesces as held by 
others, which is a witness to the value of a statement in 
the compiler’s day. It is unreasonable to suppose that, 
standing in these relations to this school, they would have 
inserted in the first, and retained in the amended Prayer 
Book, a statement which contradicted a known funda- 
mental tenet of that school, and would have excluded 
that school from the use of the Prayer Book. But if they 
would not have inserted any statement which contradicted 
a fundamental tenet of these divines, it follows that any 
statement which they did insert, must have been capable 
of being understood at that time in a sense consistent 
with that tenet; and we thus have evidence to the force 
and value of the statement in the Baptismal Service, as a 


Cuap. VIII.|] Avgument of Precedent. 341 


o 





piece of language at that time, that it admitted of an 
hypothetical construction, and had not the character of a 
dogmatic statement. 

To the evidence drawn from the relations of our Re- 
formers to the Calvinistic School, succeeds the evidence 
which consists in the tacit acquiescence of the Calvinists 
themselves in this statement in the Baptismal Service: 
for if it can be shown that the Calvinistic School holding 
the regeneration of the elect alone, acquiesced without 
complaint or objection in this statement, that again is 
valid evidence at least to the latitude of construction 
attaching to this statement at that time; inasmuch as 
had it had the force of a dogmatic statement, they could 
not possibly have acquiesced in it. 

On this head, then, we have the tacit testimony just 
mentioned of Peter Martyr and Bucer, two of the most 
distinguished foreign Reformers, who distinctly holding 
the tenet that only the elect could be regenerate,! passed 
over without even a hint of disapprobation this statement 
in the Baptismal Service, in their judgment upon the 
new Prayer Book, which had been placed before them 
for the benefit of their criticism. Calvin himself regretted 
tolerabiles ineptiw in the Prayer Book, but discovered no 
doctrinal error in it. And Bucer actually inserted this 
very statement in the new Cologne Service, which he had 
the task of constructing.? But it stands to reason that 
this statement must have been objected to by such critics, 
had it had the force of a dogmatic statement at that time, 
and admitted only of a literal construction. Nor would the 
constructor of a new Service have inserted a statement in 


1 Notes 34, 35. 

2 The date of the new Cologne Service Book is 1543. A second 
edition of Bucer’s Commentary on the four Gospels, which con- 
tained indisputably the Calvinistic doctrine of baptism, was pub- 
lished in 1536. 


342 Argument of Precedent. | Parr II. 


it, which he could not himself hold; which is what we 
must suppose Bucer doing, if this statement had at that 
time the force of a dogmatic statement. 

Again, the Convocation of 1562 was in the main a 
Calvinistic body.* Of the Upper House almost all the 
members, of whom we know anything, were in close 
correspondence with the Continental Reformers of the 
Calvinistic School, with whom they professed the most 
entire doctrinal sympathy and agreement. Of the Lower 
House only a majority of one rejected the Genevan model 
with respect to church-vestments and other points of 
external ritual;—the Genevan party in respect of exter- 
nals being, 1t 1s important to observe, only one portion 
of the whole doctrinal Calvinistic party, which included 
the strongest defenders of our ritual as well as its 
assailants.* This Convocation, then, which is made up 
of Calvinists either doctrinal or Puritan, and the leading 
members of which are fresh from Marian exile and perse- 
cution, and from the focus of the Continental Reformation, 
revises our ritual, and the party for change suggests and 
all but carries various Genevan alterations; but neither 
the doctrinal Calvinists, nor even the Genevan party 


3 Strype gives a curious petition (Elizabeth, vol. i. p. 495) from 
a minority of modified predestinarians, deprecating the persecution 
of the majority. “ Please it your gracious fatherhoods therefore 
that it may be provided and enacted that none of these corrections, 
punishments, and executions, which the Clergy have in their © 
authority already, and hereafter by authority of this present par- 
liament from henceforth shall have in their authority to exercise 
upon any of the aforesaid errors and sects, or any other, shall in 
nowise extend to be executed upon any manner of person or per- 
sons as do hold of predestination as above declared.” 

* Bp. Carleton says, “It is confessed on both sides that Pro- 
testants and Puritans have held the same doctrines without variance. 
The discipline varied in England, Scotland, Geneva, and else- 
where; yet the doctrine hath been hitherto held the same.” An 
Examination, p. 121. 


Cuap. VIII.|] Argument of Precedent. 343 


raise any objection to the statement in the Baptismal 
Service. 

Again, it is a remarkable fact that for a century 
succeeding the Reformation, this statement was not 
objected to by the most rigid Puritans, though criticizing 
most stringently the ritual of the Church, and complain- 
ing bitterly of some parts even of this very Baptismal 
Service. In no one of the great protests of the Puritan 
School against the Prayer Book, does this statement 
appear as matter of complaint; not in the “ Admonition 
to Parliament,” not in the “ Declaration of Ecclesiastical 
Discipline,’ not in the ‘ Millennarian Petition.” It is 
wholly omitted in the great liturgical controversies of 
that day, not once met with in the whole of Whitgift, not 
once met with in the whole of Hooker, not once alluded 
to in the Conference at Hampton Court. We take up 
the “‘ Defence of the Answer to the Admonition.”’ This 
work contains distributed in paragraphs the Admonition 
itself, Whitgift’s reply to it, Cartwright’s answer to him, 
and his rejoinder. All this controversy relates to the 
Church’s government and services. At Tract xvi. we 
come to “ matters touching baptism,” and we find objec- 
tions made to sponsors, the sign of the cross, and other 
points in the Service. We look for some objection from 
Cartwright to the assertion of the infant’s regeneration, 
but the most eager Puritan and fiercest Calvinist of the 
day passes it over in silence. In the same way we take 
up the “ Hcclesiastical Polity.” Here is a standard work 
devoted to the task of answering all the objections which 
the Puritans of the time advanced against our Church 
Governmentand Services. We come to theobjections made 
to the Baptismal Service, and find sponsors, the sign of the 
cross, and other points complained of, but no complaint 
made about this statement. In the Conference at Hamp- 
ton Court the same class of complaints comes up again, 


344 Argument of Precedent. | Part II. 


and with exactly the same omission. How is this? 
Had this statement been understood then as requiring a 
literal interpretation, it must have been objected to by 
such rigid Calvinists as the Puritans of the School of 
Cartwright and Travers. If, then, it was not objected to, 
but passed sub silentio, the only conclusion we can draw 
is, that it could not have been understood then as 
requiring a literal interpretation.’ 

2. The whole of the foregoing then is evidence to an 
admissible construction of the statement in the Baptismal 
Service at the time of the compilation of that service. Itis 
the evidence of contemporary interpretation, which has 
more than the weight of mere precedent, because it estab- 
lishes an actual sense of this statement coeval with its adop- 
tion: it proves its acceptation, and determines its actual 
force and value, as a piece of language, at that time. 
But now we come to the simple ground of precedent, i.e. 
to the de facto liberty of holding a particular construction 
of that statement, which has been enjoyed from the date 
of its insertion in the Prayer Book to the present day. 

And, first of all, it is to be observed that the hypo- 
thetical interpretation of this statement, having been 
largely openly and without disguise held in our Church 
throughout the whole time that this service has been in 
use, was never legally called in question till the other 
day, in the case of Mr. Gorham. This long silence of 
ecclesiastical law is significant; for that an open denial 
on so large a scale, of a plain and important dogmatic 


99 


> Those two notorious Puritans and “severe Calvinists,” as 
Anthony Wood calls them, Sampson and Laurence Humphrey, 
exhibit in a joint letter to Bullinger a list of “ blemishes,” still 
attaching to the services of the Church. At number 3 come the 
blemishes in the baptismal service, and the sponsors, the sign of 
the cross, &c., are objected to, but not this statement, which is 
passed over altogether. Zurich Letters, 1558—1579, p. 157. 


Caap. VIIIL.] Argument of Precedent. 345 


statement, should have been carried on in a Church for 
three centuries, without one challenge or appeal to the 
authorized tribunals of the Church, is without a parallel 
in the history of Christendom. 

It is admitted again, that for the better part of a cen- 
tury after the Reformation Calvinism was dominant in 
our Church; that it had possession of the Episcopacy, 
Universities, Theological Faculties, the ecclesiastical 
posts of eminence and dignity, and the great majority of 
the names of learning and ability. Here was a doctrinal 
system then not only permitted but reigning in the 
Church, and actually suppressing and punishing other 
manifestations of doctrine as heterodox, which was abso- 
lutely inconsistent with the literal interpretation of the 
Baptismal Service: the hypothetical interpretation of 
which service was therefore plainly throughout this 
period the dommant interpretation, the authoritative inter- 
pretation ; the interpretation, that is, that had the voice 
of the practical and living authorities of the Church on 
its side. 

Two important sets of Articles—the Lambeth and the 
Irish—embodied this dominant doctrine; the former 
having, though not a legal position, the weight of an 
authoritative statement of doctrine proceeding from 
head-quarters ; the latter having the formal and legal 
position of the Articles of a Church. There can hardly 
be clearer evidence of the general acceptation at that 
time of the statement in the Baptismal Service, as not 
being dogmatic, but admitting of an hypothetical con- 
struction, than the fact that the Irish Articles contained 
the dogmatic statement that the regenerate cannot fall 
finally away ;° while the Irish Prayer Book, being the 

6 « A true justifying faith and the sanctifying grace of the Spirit 


of God is not extinguished or vanisheth away in the regenerate 
totally or finally.”"—Thirty-seventh Irish Article. It is worth 


346 Argument of Precedent. [Parr Il. 


same as the Hnglish, contained the statement, made 
over every baptized infant, that it “is regenerate.” No 
Irish clergyman could, in the nature of the case, hold 
both statements, except by giving an hypothetical con- 
struction to the latter of the two. The received English 
‘exposition again of the Thirty-nine Articles, which con- 
demned the position “that the regenerate may fall from 
the grace of God,” was inconsistent with any other than 
an hypothetical interpretation of this statement.’ 

We have indeed laid down by the divines of this 
period, definitely and expressly, the rule of charitable 
presumption ; that the elect alone were really regenerate, 
but that inasmuch as we do not know who are elect and 
who are not, we must call all regenerate. There is some- 
thing, which at first sight requires accounting for, in the 
fact that the early guides and directors of a Church, so 
moderately balanced and tolerant in temper as our own,— 
those men who re-erected the standard of the Reforma- 
tion after its suppression, and into whose hand the desti- 
nies of our Church were so long entrusted, were rigid 
Calvinists; and we naturally inquire what it was which 
regulated and controlled this doctrinal bias, which pre- 
vented it from operating mischievously, and subordinated 
it to the practical wants and objects of the Church. 
Various reasons then may be assigned for the moderate 
and practical temper of the Anglican Calvinistic School; 
but one was the clear perception of the following 
important distinction. 

Hverybody mustsee the wide distinction thereis between 
holding the doctrine that some are from all eternity pre- 
destinated by God to eternal life, and pretending to see 


mentioning that these Articles never have been formally repealed, 
though subscription to them dropped at the Restoration. 

’ Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles by Thomas Rogers, 
Chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft. Ed. Parker Soc., p. 147. 


Cuap. VIIIL.] Argument of Precedent. 347 


who these persons are, and to distinguish them from the 
rest. And yet, practically, Calvinists have been often 
apt to forget this distinction, and from the doctrine that 
some are, to proceed to point out who are the elect. 
Where men have nominally disclaimed this power, and 
insisted much on the secrecy of the Divine decree, the 
belief that there was such a decree, has yet practically 
put it into their heads to be constantly trying to discover 
the subjects of it, and to fix on some persons in distinc- 
tion to others as being the elect; and various notes of 
sanctity, and those sometimes more or less technical, have 
been laid down to assist the believer in forming this 
judgment. An indisposition has been thus apparent in 
many Calvinists to recognize the visible Church as dis- 
tinct from the invisible: they have shrunk from the 
admission of a mixed Church, and, though knowing that 
it never could be realized in fact, have been haunted by 
the idea of a pure society of saints upon earth. 

The Anglican Calvinistic divines then were totally 
free from this error. They embraced thoroughly and 
practically the distinction which has been mentioned, and 
treated the Divine decree not nominally only, but really 
as a secret thing. And this being the case, Calvinism, 
in their hands, without losing one of its characteristic 
doctrines, ceased to be in any collision with the practical 
system of the Church. It dealt with men and things as 
it found them, and recognized no difference between one 
man and another; for though it was held undoubtingly 
that such a difference did exist from all eternity, it was 
also seen as a plain fact that God had not revealed the 
persons between whom it lay; and therefore the old 
proverb, “de non eaistentibus et non apparentibus,” was 
followed as a rule of action. These divines accordingly 
accepted fully the idea of the visible or earthly Church, 
as a mixed body ; a result with which they were taunted 


348 Argument of Precedent. [Part II. 


by the Puritans, who were for a premature winnowing of 
the tares from the wheat. A reader will see this differ- 
ence in the standard of the earthly Church pervading the 
controversies of that day between the ecclesiastical and 
the sectarian Calvinists; the permanent idea of the one 
being to extend the Church and of the other to confine it, 
of the one to include and of the other to exclude. 

The rule then which was adopted by the Anglican 
Calvinists was, as has been said, the rule of charitable 
presumption. “ Who can tell,’ says Abp. Whitgift, 
‘‘“whether he be holy or unholy, good or evil, elect or 
reprobate, that is baptized, be he infant or at years of 
discretion?”’? ‘Whoever are baptized,’ says Abp. 
Abbot, “ are to us and the Church regenerated, justified, 
sanctified ; nor to be looked upon in any other light until 
they manifest themselves not to be so.” ‘ All that 
receive baptism,’ says Bishop Carlton, “are called the 
children of God, regenerate, justified, for to us they must 
be taken for such in charity until they show themselves 
other.” ‘“ What thou art invisibly,” says Benefield, 
‘and in the sight of God, God alone knoweth: He alone 
is KapdvoyvworTns, and sees and knows thy heart. But 
since thou hast given thy name to Christ, and hast had 
the washing of the new birth, the Church in charity 
must judge of thee as of one truly grafted into Christ 
and truly regenerate.” ‘We are,” says Bishop 
Downame, “to distinguish between the judgment of 
charity and the judgment of certainty. For although 
in general we know not that every one that is 
baptized is justified or shall be saved, yet, when we 
come to speak of particulars, we are to judge of them 
that are baptized that they are regenerated and 
justified, and that they shall be saved, until they shall 
discover themselves not to be such. And so our Book 
of Common Prayer speaketh of them, as the Scrip- 


Cuap. VIII.] Argument of Precedent. 349 


tures also teach us to speak of them that are baptized, 
that they are regenerated and engrafted into the body of 
Christ ; though perhaps they be only regenerated sacra- 
mento tenus, and engrafted only into the body of the 
visible Church. But this judgment of charity is no 
matter of certainty, or of faith, but may be deceived.” 
“ Our Church,” says Burgess, a zealous champion of the 
principle of sacramental grace, though as a strict Cal- 
vinist he limited its operation by the other and secret 
principle of the Divine election,—“ our Church excludes 
none from participation of the inward grace of the Sacra- 
ment [of baptism]; but knowing for certain that all the 
elect do partake of it, and not knowing at all that this 
or that particular infant is not elected, suffers not any of 
her children to speak or judge of any particular infant 
that he doth not receive the inward grace; no more than 
she permits him to say that such a particular is not 
elected. For ‘who hath known the mind of the Lord?’ 
and, ‘ who art thou that judgest another man’s servant ?’ 
Howbeit, our Church knows very well, and presumes that 
all her children know also, that in respect of election, 
known only to God, they are not all Israel that are of 
Israel ; and that of those many that be called but a few 
be chosen. But who those few be, she will not deter- 
mine, yet thus much she doth determine, that any par- 
ticular infant rightly baptized is to be taken and held in 
the judgment of charity for a member of the true invisible 
elected, sanctified Church of Christ, and that he is rege- 
rated.” 

The name of Hooker stands by itself and has always a 
reserved place in theological surveys, as appearing to 
occupy a middle ground between two systems, where 
Calvinism just verges upon the later or Anglican view. 
His doctrinal language in this department, whichis a great 
battle-field of interpretation, consists of two parts, a part 


350 Argument of Precedent. [Parr II. 


agreed upon and a disputed part. It is agreed that he 
held the doctrine of the Indefectibility of grace, and that 
this doctrine is incompatible with the Baptismal Service 
literally interpreted.* Itis disputed whether his baptismal 
statements are consistent with the statements of the doc- 
trine of Indefectibility or contradictory to them. The 
matter then lies thus; that, if the baptismal statements 
are pronounced to chime in with the statements of the 
Indefectibility of grace, Hooker’s doctrine of baptism was 
undividedly Calvinistic; if the two are inconsistent, 
Hooker is neutral, self-contradictory, and not an authority 
either way. The two sets of statements do not appear to 
me to be inconsistent; but upon either view the fact 
remains that Hooker throughout his works makes state- 
ments which are inconsistent with the literal interpreta- 
tion of the Baptismal Service.° 

Without basing the admissibility of a particular inter- 
pretation then upon such a body of precedent as this, IL 
may yet callattention toa difficulty which this Calvinistic 
period of our Church throws upon the prohibition of it. 
“ May I by the law of the Church hold the doctrine of the 
Lambeth Articles, and the Irish Articles—the doctrine 
which was dominant in the Church for a century after the 
Reformation, and the interpretation of the statement in 
the Baptismal Service which was dominant with it 
throughout this period ?” isa question which a clergyman 
of the present day has a right to ask. If he may, the 
whole point is conceded. If he may not, then what is 
illegal in him was illegal in Archbishop Whitgift, in 
Archbishop Abbot, and in the great majority of the 
Bishops, theological professors, and principal dignitaries 
of the Church for nearly a century, who were therefore all 
holding their preferments contrary to Church law. This 


8 Preface to Keble’s Edition, p. 102. 9 Note 38. 


Cuap. VIII.) Argument of Precedent. 351 


may not settle the question, but in proportion as we feel 
reluctant to say that Archbishop Whitgift and the rest 
officiated in the Church illegally, in that proportion we 
admit that such an interpretation is legal. 

But now we enter upon anotherera. A totally opposite 
school succeeded the Calvinistic in power; but the reign 
of this school did not in the least interfere with this 
interpretation. The Caroline divines manifested not the 
slightest wish to impose the literal construction of the 
statement in the Baptismal Service; though perfectly 
aware, the fact being so patent and notorious, that this 
was not the sense in which a large section of the Church 
accepted the statement. The rule of the Laudian School 
on this question was conformity to language combined 
with latitude of sense, the use of the service as it stood 
joined with liberty in the interpretation of it. There was 
a great deal of dispute with the Puritans about this ser- 
vice, but from first to last the point of that dispute was 
not the interpretation of the service, but simply the use 
of it. The use of it was insisted on, alterations of it 
were refused, but if the Puritans would only take it as 
it stood and use it, no question was asked, and no objec- 
tion was made, as to any sense in which it was understood. 
The divines of the Savoy Conference, as divines, defended 
the statement of the regeneration of the infant, as a literal 
one, but they did not impose that sense of it on their 
opponents. It was no liberty of interpretation which was 
denied to the Puritans, but only the alteration of the 
actual form of‘the service. 

Up to this time the Puritans had made no objection to 
the statement in the Infant Baptismal Service, that “ this 
child is regenerate,” because they had hitherto entertained 
no general objection to the rule of presumption, i.e. to 
the use of statements in form literal but in meaning 
hypothetical, as a usage in Services; and though they 


452 Argument of Precedent. [Parr II. 


had objected to it in a special case,' this was not the case. 
But at the Savoy Conference the Puritans, having found 
perhaps that a statement which required an explanation, 
however familiar and recognized, gave a doctrinal advan- 
tage to their opponents, alter their tactics on this subject, 
and raise a general objection against the use of this class 
of statements in services: ‘ Whereas through the several 
offices the phrase is such as presumes all persons within 
the communion of the Church to be regenerated, con- 
verted, and in an actual state of grace...it cannot be 
rationally admitted in the utmost latitude of charity: 
we desire that this may be reformed.”* Having raised 
this general objection, then, against this class of state- 
ment, when they come to the particular statement in the 
Infant Baptismal Service, they object to that statement 
in particular, not because they had not the liberty to 
interpret it hypothetically, but because they objected to 
the use of language which required this liberty. “ We 
cannot in faith say that every child that is baptized is 
‘regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit,’ at least it is a dis- 
putable point; and therefore we desire it may be other- 
wise expressed.” * It must be remarked that they do not 
say that they could not make the statement, but that they 
could not make it “in faith,” i.e. with the belief that the 
fact was so in the case of every infant. ‘The objection is 
not upon the ground, then, that the statement is dogmatic, 
in which case they would have absolutely rejected it; 
but that as a presumptive statement it 1s unadvisable. 


1 The infant’s answer “I believe,” was objected to by Cartwright 
on this ground. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., v. lxiv.3. As the service 
then stood this was the infant’s answer, instead of the sponsors’ in 
the name of the infant, though the difference between the two 
forms is immaterial. 

> Cardwell’s History of Conferences, p. 308. 

8 Ibid. p. 325. 


Cuap. VIII.) Argument of Precedent. 353 


Nor do they deny the fact of the usage in Church Ser- 
vices, according to which this statement is so interpre- 
table, but the expediency of it, taking the ground that the 
Church should make matter-of-fact statements and those 
only. 

The Puritans, then, in the Savoy Conference demand- 
ing an actual alteration of the service, and the removal of 
this statement, the divines of the Church refused to grant 
this request, but the refusal to alter the statement was 
not to prohibit a particular interpretation of it. The Savoy 
divines indeed accepted this statement themselves in the 
literal sense, and defended it in that sense, but they did 
not impose that sense on their opponents; while they 
allow and.defend the rule of presumption generally as used 
by the Church. “The Church in her services useth no 
more offensive phrase than St. Paul uses, when he 
writes to the Corinthians, Galatians, and others, calling 
them in general the Churches of God, sanctified in Christ 
Jesus, by vocation saints.” * 

Nor indeed was this interpretation of the statement 
in the Baptismal Service one which this school of divines 
only tolerated in opponents; for distinguished members 
of this very school held it themselves. ‘ God’s super- 
natural agency,” says Hammond, “ interposes sometimes 
in the mother’s womb, as in John the Baptist springing 
in Elizabeth at Mary’s salutation, and perhaps in Jere- 
miah, ‘ Before thou camest out of the womb, I sanctified 
thee,’ and in Isaiah, ‘The Lord that formed me in the 
womb to be His servant.’ But this divine address 
attends most ordinarily till the time of our baptism, when 
the Spirit accompanying the outward sign infuses itself 
‘into their hearts, and there seats and plants itself, and 
grows up with the reasonable soul, keeping even their 


* Cardwell’s History of Conferences, p. 342. 
A a 


354 Argument of Precedent. [Parr I. 


most luxuriant years within bounds; andas they come to 
a use of their reason, more and more multiplying this 
habit of grace into holy spiritual acts of faith and 
obedience ; from which it is ordinarily said that infants 
baptized have habitual faith, and they may be said also 
to have habitual repentance and the habits of all other 
graces, because they have the root and seed of ‘those 
beauteous healthful flowers which will actually flourish in 
them, when they come to years. And this, I say, is 
so frequent to be performed at baptism, that ordinarily 
it is not wrought without that means, and in those 
means we may expect it, as our Church doth in our 
Liturgies, where she presumes at every baptism that ‘ it 
hath pleased God to regenerate the infant by His Holy 
Spirit.” ° Durel, Dean of Windsor, is thus described by 
Anthony Wood :—“ He was a person of unbiassed and 
fixed principles, untainted and steady loyalty, as con- 
stantly adhering to the sinking cause and interest of his 
sovereilon in the worst of times; who dared with an 
unshaken and undaunted resolution to stand up and 
maintain the honour and dignity of the English Church. 
He was very well versed also in all the controversies on 
foot between the Church and the disciplinarian party. 
The justness and reasonableness of the established con- 
stitutions of the former no one of late years hath more 
plainly manifested, or with greater learning hath more © 
successfully defended.”? From a divine promoted then 
under the very meridian of Caroline ascendancy, and a 
prominent and admired champion of the Church in his 
day, we have this interpretation of the Infant Baptismal 
Service. 

“As to what he says, ‘that no man can be a minister 
of the Reformed Church of England who is not certainly 


> Sermon xxvil. 


Cuap. VIII.] Avoument of Precedent. 355 


persuaded of the regeneration of every infant baptized, 
neither also is that true. The minister truly gives thanks 
to God after each infant has been baptized, that it hath 
pleased God to regenerate him with His Holy Spirit. 
But it does not thence follow that he ought to be certain 
of the regeneration of every infant baptized. For it is 
sufficient if. he be persuaded of the regeneration of some 
only, for instance of elect infants, or if you like of some 
only of that number, that on that account he may be 
able, nay ought, to give God thanks for each and all 
baptized. Since who is elected he knows not, and since 
it is but just that he should, by the judgment of charity, 
presume that as many as he baptizes are elect, and, if any 
are regenerated in baptism (which none but a Socinian 
or Catabaptist will deny), regenerated. . . . Since the 
Church is ignorant who they are to whom God vouchsafes 
that grace, and ought to presume tt in the judgment of 
charity of every one baptized, I ask what just fault can be 
found with that prayer in which he gives thanks to God 
for the regeneration of infants baptized ?’’® 

We have then in the facts appealed to in this chapter 
the comment of an actual course of things upon the state- 
ment in the Baptismal Service ; the truth being that this 
statement was inserted in the Prayer Book by men in inti- 
-mate relations with divines of the Calvinistic School who 
distinctly held that only the elect were regenerate; that 
it was acquiesced in by the most rigid Calvinists of that 
period without a word of complaint ; that the hypothetical 
‘nterpretation of this statement was the dominant inter- 
pretation for a century after the Reformation; that the 
Laudian School in its full power and highest ascendancy 
never thought of interfering with it; and that lastly an 
interpretation which was thus coeval with the very service 


6 Eccl. Angl. Vindiciz, p. 291. 
Aa 2 


356 Argument of Precedent. 





itself was never legally called in question till the other 
day. We have in this state of facts two things proved ; 
first, that this statement has not as a piece of language the 
force of a dogmatic statement, having been accompanied 
by another construction at and from the time of its in- 
sertion in the Prayer Book; secondly, that the liberty to 
hold the hypothetical construction of this statement, has 
been enjoyed from the date of the compilation of the 
Prayer Book to the present moment. 

In this state of the case the movement, just referred 
to, to procure the condemnation of this construction of 
the statement in the Baptismal Service, was an attempt 
to alter, upon one point, the received doctrinal standard 
of the English Church; it was a departure from the 
doctrinal standard even of the Laudian School, as being © 
an endeavour to withdraw a liberty in the open and undis- 
guised use of which that school had uniformly acquiesced ; 
it was in short the innovation, and the Judgment repre- 
sented the practical tradition and rule of the Church. 


CHAPTER IX 


RELATIONS OF TIME BETWEEN THE GRACE AND THE 
SACRAMENT 


IT HAVE assumed in the foregoing pages that the ground 
of objection to the Gorham Judgment is the decision on 
the side of conditional infant regeneration, as being a 
doctrine consistent with our formularies, and that this 
was the question at issue in that case. Jt would appear, 
however, to have been intimated by some that the objec- 
tion to that judgment was not so much on the ground of 
what it contained, as of what it omitted, 1. e. certain state- 
ments of the accused which it passed over, and of which 
it took no cognizance ; and this ground of objection has 
a claim upon our attention. 

Mr. Gorham in his examination made two distinct sets 
of statements, one relating to the conditions of regene- 
ration, to the effect that it was even in the case of infants 
conditional ; the other to the time of regeneration, when 
it took place in those in whom it did take place. With 
respect to this latter point then it was urged that whereas 
his declared opinion was that ‘‘ in no case was regeneration 
in baptism,” the Judgment represented his statement as 
being that regeneration “ may be granted before, in, or 
after baptism ;” and therefore the charge was made that 
the judges understated his position, and passed over an 
important part of the evidence which was laid before 
them. But the truth is that there were two conflicting 
sets of statements of the accused on this point. One was 


358 Relations of Time between the | Part il. 


that “‘the new nature must have been possessed by those 
who receive baptism rightly, and therefore possessed before 
baptism,”’—that the filial state was given to the worthy 
recipient before baptism, and not in baptism.”’ The 
other was “that the Holy Ghost may impart the new 
nature before baptism, in baptism, or after baptism,” and 
that “ justification may take place before, in, or after 
that sacrament.”? These two sets of statements are in 
contradiction to each other, and cannot be reconciled ;— 
the one excluding the actual time of baptism as a time 
of regeneration, the other including it together with other 
times. The court under these circumstances, only made 
the accused responsible for the less obnoxious one of the 
two, and represented his opinion as being that regene- 
ration “ may be granted before, in, or after baptism.” 

Such a representation, however, of the opinion of the 
accused, was not a sufficient ground for the charge that 
the court falsified the evidence laid before it, and mis- 
stated the facts of the case. It could not avail itself of, 
and use for the purpose of a judgment, both of two con- 
tradictory statements; and not being able to do this, it 
had no alternative but to take that one which was most 
to the advantage of the accused party. A court must 
deal with conflicting data, where the data are such, in 
some way or other ; and the acknowledged rule of dealing 
with them is to give the accused the benefit of the more 
favourable side of them. This is a principle of equity 
which is universally accepted, and it is the more obli- 
gatory where the statements, of which the estimate is to 
be formed, relate to a confessedly intricate and compli- 
cated subject like the present. 

1. Such being the state of the case, I would remark 
first that the objection to this judgment on the ground 


* Examination, pp. 88, 113. ? Thid. pp. 71, 198. 


Crap. IX.] Grace and the Sacrament. 359 


of what it omits, is not a tenable one. Indeed it is 
obviously not the ground upon which, as.a matter of 
fact, the objection to this judgment has been raised. 
This judgment has been objected to as a decision upon 
a doctrinal point, and a decision which committed the 
Church, so far as the court could do this, to an erroneous 
doctrine. Buta judgment cannot possibly be a decision 
upon any point which it omits ; it can only be a decision 
upon such points as it takes cognizance of. It can only 
sanction what it admits to be under its consideration ; 
it cannot authorize any opinion, right or wrong, the exist- 
ence of which it does not recognize. As a decision upon 
a matter of doctrine, this judgment cannot commit the 
Church to any matter of doctrine except that which it 
expressly notices, and upon which it 7s a decision. Inas- 
much then as this judgment has, as a matter of fact, been 
regarded as a decision upon a point of doctrine, the ob- 
jection to it has been, as a matter of fact, on the ground 
of what it contains. 

2. With respect to this whole question of the relation 
in point of time of the grace to the sacrament, it must be 
observed that after the argument of the preceding chap- 
ters, relating to the statement of the fact of regeneration 
in the Baptismal Service, the ground is gone upon which 
it could be maintained that the Service imposed and laid 
down the time of regeneration. Because this is a question 
which depends upon the principle of interpretation, which 
is to be applied to the Baptismal Service,’ and it has been 
decided in the foregoing chapters what this principle 1s, 
and that it does not compel a literal interpretation. It 


3 The phrase “ efficax signum” in the Articles does not involve 
simultaneity of time in the sacrament and the grace. It was in 
common use in the writings of the Calvinistic divines, in combi- 
nation with the obsignatory view of baptism, as the seal of a grace 
which was ante-baptismal. 


360 Relations of Time between the | Parr IT. 


is true the assumption pervades the whole form of the 
Baptismal Service, that the baptized person is wiregene- 
rate up to the moment of baptism, and regenerate imme- 
diately upon it; but if the Baptismal Service is not 
dogmatic when it asserts in every case the fact of 
regeneration, as it has been shown not to be, still less 
can it be considered dogmatic when it assumes the time 
of regeneration. The same construction of the service 
which proves the literal statement of the fact not to be a 
doctrinal statement, proves the formal assumption of the 
time not to be doctrinal either. The question of the 
time of regeneration, then, is not one which can be 
brought forward and insisted upon as an independent 
ground of objection against this judgment, supposing we 
have proved and made good its interpretation of the > 
Baptismal Service upon the question of fact. Because, 
both questions being decided by the same evidence, the 
decision of the one question is contained in the decision 
upon the other; which latter decision has been made, 
and the proof of it given in the foregoing chapters. 
Indeed the baptismal offices of the Church have never 
been regarded as dogmatic upon the point of time, though 
formally assuming the instant of baptism to be the time 
of regeneration. That regeneration may be before or 
after baptism is a very old and received admission in 
theology, Peter Lombard himself, the father of the School- 
men, the first systematic exponent of the Fathers, and 
the founder of formal and scientific theology, having 
said,— Nec mireris rem aliquando preecedere sacramentum, 
cum aliquando etiam longe post sequatur.”* Nor was 
this an admission only of irregular and extraordinary 
cases, but of one regular mode of proceeding in the. 
Divine dispensation; for it included the whole class of 
baptized adults, who were pronounced, if believing, to 


* L. iv. dist. iv. 


Cuap. [X.] Grace and the Sacrament. 361 





have the grace of baptism before baptism ; if unbelieving, 
not to have it till afterwards upon belief. Yet side by 
side with this general admission, the baptismal offices of 
the Church assumed all along the time of the adult’s 
regeneration as the very instant of baptism only: which 
assumption was therefore liturgical, not doctrinal.’ It is 
true that in the statements of the accused this arrange- 
ment of an antecedent and subsequent regeneration was 
applied to infants as well as to adults: but this was an 
extension of the arrangement for which the great body 
of the Reformation divines was responsible. Such an 
extension was indeed the result of their application to 
infants of the law of adult baptism, and was allowable if 
that application was allowable, which it has been shown, 
in the silence of Scripture, to be.’ The Schoolmen 
regarded the faith, which is the condition of justification 
or regeneration in adults, as itself constituting their 
justification antecedently to baptism. The Reformation 
divines, making faith the condition for infants as well, 
gave the same antecedently justifying and regenerating 
office to a seminal faith in infants. This was when faith 
was supposed to be ante-baptismal, and the analogy was 
the same upon the other alternative. The Schoolmen 
and Fathers made regeneration in the adult post- 
baptismal, when his faith was post-baptismal: and the 
Reformation divines gave regeneration the same subse- 
quence in the infant, when they regarded the infant’s 
faith as subsequent to baptism, and the result of a riper 
age. 

> Supr. p. 143. 

6 Tt has been contended that the opinions held by Mr. Gorham 
are not the opinions which were held by the divines of the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries, but opinions almost peculiar to himself. 
But this is a mistake.” Bishop Kaye's Charges, p. 449. Mr. 
Gorham’s language only indeed expressed the obsignatory view of 


baptism which pervades the theology of the Reformation. Note 36. 
7 Part I. chapter ii. 


CHAPTER X 
CONCLUSION 


Upon the delivery of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, 
in 1850, a solemn and public Protest* appeared against 
it, signed by large bodies of clergy, as well as by many 
distinguished and influential laymen. It was a Protest 
which excited remarkable attention at the time, and 
appeared to threaten almost a convulsion of the Church. 
It embodied strong feelings of indignation and the deepest 
apprehensions for the doctrinal safety of the Church on 
the part of those who joined in it. This state of feeling 
has, as might have been anticipated, calmed down in 
course of years ; nevertheless, the Protest then made still 
goes on and maintains its ground as a standing Protest 
in the Church, and continual expression is given to it in 
the language and religious writings of a large and 
important section of the Church. Nor.can it be doubted 
that this Judgment is still felt by a considerable portiou 
of the Church as a serious grievance; that it is regarded 
as a decision made in the teeth of the Church’s formularies, 
and an instance of truth and justice having been over- 
looked in deference to a supposed expediency. 

Such a standing Protest, upon so large a scale, against 
a public doctrinal judgment of a Court, professing to be 
the Church’s supreme Court, and certainly able to give 
practical effect to its decisions within the Church, cannot 


' Note 37. 


Conclusion. 363 


be considered as unimportant, accompanied, as it: must 
be, by a considerable amount of serious dissatisfaction 
with the doctrinal position of the Church, and tending to 
keep up that dissatisfaction. And therefore, on the part 
of those who maintain such a Protest, a certain responsi- 
bility is incurred; such a responsibility as may induce 
them, from time to time, not to object to reconsidering 
the ground of their Protest, and reviewing the facts of 
the case. 

For it should be borne in mind that such a standing 
Protest as this is a serious disadvantage to the Church in 
this respect, that it represents the Church as unable to 
prevent a particular doctrine, opposed to the letter of her 
formularies, from being publicly taught by her ministers ; 
and being therefore so far in a state of doctrinal slavery 
and subjugation to an external and heterodox power; 
and that, representing the Church in this character, it 
lays her under a stigma which is injurious to her, and 
affects her credit. 

The preceding pages then have adduced evidenee to 
show that a Protest against this Judgment, as being in 
contradiction to the formularies of the Church, has not 
adequate grounds to rest upon. And, first, it is to be 
observed that, whereas it was a formal estimate of the 
doctrine in dispute, viz. the regeneration of all infants in 
baptism, as being an article of the faith, which gave this 
controversy its deep interest, and which was the reason 
of that extraordinary and unprecedented commotion which 
arose in the Church upon the occasion of the Judgment 
referred to; it was shown, in the former part of this 
treatise, that this doctrine is not an article of the faith, 
not being read in or proved by Scripture; a conclusion 
which we of the Church of England have always in 
practice adopted; opposing parties among us having 
never treated the most open difference on this particular 


364 Conclusion. [Part IT. 


point as a bar to communion; but having always united 
with each other in Christian offices, religious works, and 
labours of love, and accepted each other as brethren in 
Christ in all ecclesiastical respects. Particular reasons 
may perhaps justify a junction with heretics, admitted to 
be such, as an exceptional and extraordinary act; but a 
regular and systematic union with them in one visible 
Church is untenable upon any principles of orthodoxy : 
and, therefore, whoever do thus systematically unite with 
others disagreeing with them, must admit, in order to 
their own justification, that such a disagreement is not 
upon a fundamental point, and do by their conduct 
implicitly admit this. 

With this ascertained then, we came to the examination 
of our own formularies in the second part of this treatise 
in a calmer spirit, as knowing that whatever might be 
the result of such examination, the question involved no 
matter of fundamental orthodoxy. Indeed, with this 
ascertained, there was little ground left upon which it 
could be thought particularly desirable that our Church 
should impose the doctrine in question. It is open to a 
Church doubtless, upon grounds of general expediency, 
to impose on her clergy points which are not essential ; 
but still, the security of the faith being the main ground 
for the imposition of doctrine, the presumption is, that 
a particular doctrine being ascertained not to be an article 
of the faith, the formularies of our Church will not be 
found to impose it; more especially if such doctrine was 
a controverted one at the time of the construction of those 
formularies ; it being admitted that our Church is disposed 
to latitude on subordinate points, and aims at compre- 
hension. 

But though a preliminary weight attaches to general 
theological considerations, still a question which relates 
to a particular Judgment, interpretative of particular 


Cuap. X. | Conclusion. 365 





formularies, must be decided by the language of those 
formularies alone. Because, even if a given doctrine is 
not an article of the faith, still, if our formularies impose 
it, persons have the right to protest publicly against a 
Judgment which falsely affirms that they do not; and 
therefore the question is ultimately one relating entirely 
to our own formularies. 

The considerations, then, to which I have called 
attention in the preceding chapters show that our formu- 
laries do not supply an adequate ground for this Protest ; 
because nothing can justify a Protest in behalf of a 
particular doctrine, as a doctrine imposed by the formu- 
laries of our Church, except such a statement of the 
doctrine in those formularies as only admits of being 
considered as a positive and dogmatic statement of it. 
But no such statement of the doctrine, that all infants 
are regenerate in baptism, can be found in the whole of 
our formularies from beginning to end. We find, indeed, 
a statement in the Infant Baptismal Service, made over 
every infant after baptism, that it is regenerate, and we 
find the statement put into the child’s mouth in the Cate- 
chism,—that in baptism he was made a child of God. 
But when we examine the principles upon which Church 
services and Catechisms are constructed, we find that they 
admit of a class of statements which are literal in form, 
but hypothetical in meaning. We find this as a known 
and established usage of language in these classes of formu- 
laries. The statements then now referred to, occurring 
as they do in formularies of this character, have not the 
force of positive and dogmatic statements. Were there 
an assertion indeed in the Church’s Articles of Religion 
that all infants are regenerate in baptism, there could be 
no doubt that this assertion in the Articles was dogmatic; 
and in that case these statements in the Service and 
Catechism, though not dogmatic of themselves, would 


366 Conclusion. [Parr IT. 


receive a dogmatic sense from such assertion in the Articles. 
But in the absence of any such assertion elsewhere in our 
formularies, an assertion pronounced over the child in a 
service, or put into the child’s mouth in a Catechism, does 
not possess this force. 

The Prayer Book is thus proved to be inclusive in its 
basis by the simple application of those rules of inter- 
pretation which have been shown to apply to devotional 
and catechetical formularies. And this conclusion is con- 
firmed by the whole weight of precedent, and embodied in 
the uninterrupted practice of the Church, from the Re- 
formation to the present day. It is evident in the first 
place from history, that the liberty of construction 
claimed in this case is coeval with the Prayer Book; that 
the statement of the infant’s regeneration was inserted in 
the Baptismal Service, at its compilation, with this liberty 
of construction then attaching and belonging to it, and 
that as a piece of language it was understood naturally 
and as a matter of course among divines as bearing such 
a construction. And in the next place we have from 
that date to the present an uninterrupted acquiescence of 
the Church in this liberty of construction, which was not 
legally called in question till the year 1849 ;—which is to 
say, that the whole practical tradition of the Hnglish 
Church is on its side. 

This whole evidence viewed collectively appears to me 
conclusive in favour of the judgment of the Court of 
Appeal, viz. that our formularies do not impose. the 
doctrine that all infants are regenerate in baptism. But 
it is not necessary that this evidence should be absolutely 
conclusive for the purpose of invalidating the grounds for 
a Protest against that judgment: it is enough if it is 
sufficiently strong to make the grounds for that Protest 
doubtful and uncertain ; if it is sufficiently strong to shake 
the Protestor’s conviction of the correctness of his own 


Crap. X.] Conclusion. 367 





assertion, which he makes in opposition to the decision of 
the Court. 

For it must be remembered that a public Protest is a 
special and definite act, requiring for its justification a 
clear and undoubting conviction of the truth of the posi- 
tion for which the Protest is made. An undecided 
judgment upon the evidence is consistent with a bias 
and preference for one particular conclusion, but not with 
a formal and solemn assertion of that conclusion, in the 
face of the whole Church, and with the attribution of 
positive error to the Court for deciding in favour of the 
opposite one. It is evident that a person is not in a 
condition to take these two steps, which are involved in 
the solemn act of a Public Protest, unless he is fully 
assured and conviced in his own mind of the truth of the 
conclusion in defence of which he adopts this course of 
proceeding. A Public Protest does not admit of a divided 
judgment as the ground of it. It declares that the mind 
of the person protesting is made up definitively, and that 
he takes upon himself the responsibility of a positive 
assertion in opposition to the assertion of the Court. 

Does any person then, upon an estimate of the whole 
bearing of our formularies on this subject, and of the 
weight, whatever it may be, which is due to precedent 
and the uninterrupted practice of three centuries, decide 
with certainty that the Church of England imposes the 
doctrine of the regeneration of all infants in baptism, and 
that there is no proper room for doubt upon this question ? 
He is a person qualified to protest against the judgment 
of the Court of Appeal. Does he admit that there is 
proper room for doubt? He is disqualified for adopting 
or continuing such a step. 


> ‘2 Wiras ea 
' | LeU be oa 


eh tev pa 


* 
4 


Ps 
\ 
a 





NOTES. 


Nore 1,. p. 18. 


“We make three kinds of interpretation ; the first private, and so 
every one may interpret the Scripture, i.e. privately with himself 
conceive or deliver to other what he thinketh the meaning of it to 
be: the second of public direction, and so the pastors of the Church 
may publicly propose what they conceive of it: and the third of 
jurisdiction, and so they that have supreme power, i. e. the Bishops 
assembled in a general council, may interpret the Scripture, and 
by their authority suppress all them that shall gainsay such inter- 
pretations, and subject every man that shall disobey such determi- 
nations as they consent upon to excommunication and censures of 
a like nature. 

“ But for authentical interpretation of Scripture, which every man’s 
conscience is bound to yield unto, it is of a higher nature ; neither do 
we think any of these to be such.’’ Field on the Church, p. 367. 

“ Here be two obligations which sometimes may contradict one 
another ... The use of the means to determine the meaning of 
the Scriptures, produceth an obligation of holding that which fol- 
loweth from it ; which obligation no man can have or ought to ima- 
gine he hath, before the due use of such means, whether his estate 
in the Church oblige him to use them or not. But the visible 
determination of the Church obliges all that are of the Church not 
to scandalize the unity thereof by professing contrary tothe same. 
And to both these obligations the same man may be subject, as the 
matter may be, to wit, as one that hath resolved the question upon 
true principles, not to believe the contrary; and as one of the 
Church, that believes the Church faileth in that for which he is 
bound not to break the unity thereof, not to profess against what 
the Church determineth ... I say not that this holds always 
and in matters of whatsoever concernment, nor do I take upon me 
generally to resolve this, no more than what is the matter of the 
rule of faith, which he that believes may be saved, he that posi- 

Bb 


370 Note 2. 


tively believes it not all cannot.” Thorndike, Principles of Christian 
Truth, Book i. c. 24. 


Nore 2, p. 22. 


The conclusion of the second Peedobaptist Controversy is thus 
stated by Wall,— Now to apply what has been said to the P ado- 
baptists and Anti-pzedobaptists : the main inquiry is whether the 
point in debate between them be a fundamental article of the Chris- 
tian faith; for if it be, they must indeed separate in this commu- 
nion, and the guilt will lie on those who are in error. But if it be 
not, there is not by the rules laid down any sufficient reason for 
their separating or renouncing one another, which party soever be 
in the wrong. Now I think that such a question about the age or 
time of one’s receiving baptism does not look like a fundamental, 
nor is so reputed in the general sense of Christians. ... 

“Tt is a general rule that all fundamental points are in Scripture 
so plainly and fairly delivered, that any man of tolerable sincerity 
cannot but perceive the meaning of the holy writers to be that we 
should believe them. Now baptism itself, viz. that all that enter 
into Christ’s Church should be baptized, is indeed plainly delivered 
in Scripture; so that we are amazed at the Quakers and Socinians, 
the one for refusing it, the other for counting it indifferent. But 
at what age the children of Christians should be baptized, whether 
in infancy or to stay till the age of reason, is not so clearly deli- 
vered, but that it admits of a dispute that has considerable per- 
plexitiesin it . . . This, therefore, being not set down so very plain, 
does not seem by Scripture to be such a fundamental, as that we 
should be bound to renounce communion with every one that is not 
of the same opinion as we are about it . . . The ancientand primi- 
tive Christians for certain did not reckon this point among the © 
fundamentals . .. For the sense of modern Christians ; first, the 
Papists of modern times do confidently maintain that there is no 
proof at all, direct or consequential, from the Scripture for infant 
baptism. And it is certain they do not pretend there is any- 
thing against it . . . It follows then from their pretence that Scrip- 
ture is silent in the case. If so, then it is a thing that no 
Protestant will account a fundamental, and consequently will not 
deviate from it. So these men’s arguments will make us both 
friends, at least so far as to live in communion with one 
another.” ... 


Note 3. 371 
* But to leave these,—the most serious and judicious, both of the 
Peedobaptists and Anti-pzdobaptists (even those of them that have 
been most engaged against each other in polemical writings, which 
do commonly abate people’s charity), do'agree that this difference 
is not in the essentials of religion. Here I might recite, if I had 
nct been too long already, the words of Bishop Taylor, Dr. Ham- 
mond, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Wills, &c., on the one side, and of Mr. 
Tombes, Mr. Stennet, &c., onthe other. ... 

* To speak of the case of England in particular. They know 
themselves that it is a separation begun less than eighty years ago. 
Any very ancient man may remember when there was no Society 
or Church of them of that persuasion. They at first held the 
opinion without separating for it . . . Mr. Tombes, who continued 
an Anti- pedobaptist to his dying day, yet, as I am told, wrote 
against separation for it, and for communion with the parish 
churches ... He continued in communion in the Churchof Salis- 
bury all the latter part of his life. Nor has that Church ever 
been blamed for receiving him. On the contrary, the example has 
been spoken of with commendation.” History of Infant Baptism, 
vol. 11. p. 547 et seq. 

“Some of them do still continue to hold communion with the 
established Church in the public prayers, and in the other sacra- 
ment; and in this too, as far as is consistent with their opinion, 
i. e. when their children are adult and desire baptism, they advise 
them to receive it in the Church at the hands of their lawful 
minister.” Vol. iv. p. 471. 

The modified non-peedobaptism of the ancients involved the neces- 
sity of p edobaptism in case of extremity. “I acknowledge it is 
the opinion of Tertullian, for which there is no mark upon him as 
ever a whit the less Catholic, that it was not expedient to baptize 
infants .. . But I deny that this was because he or anybody then 
believed that they could go out of the world unbaptized and yet 
be saved.” (Thorndike, Principles of Christian Truth, B.i. c. 23, 
§ 37.) Wall’s comprehensive basis, however, includes the full doc- 
trine of anti-peedobaptism, which is a prohibition of peedobaptism 
altogether, as tenable within the Church. 


Norte 3, p. 31. 


Lord Lyttelton, in his very thoughtful tract on Infant Baptism, 
in which however the writer is rather feeling his way than profess- 


Bb 2 


47% Note 4. 


ing to arrive at any positive conclusion, says, “ This withdrawal of 
the question from the regicn of fixed dogma I am slow to acquiesce 
in, if it were only for the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews, in 
which the ‘doctrine of baptisms’ is recited among the funda- 
mentals of the Christian faith.” But what is the “ doctrine of bap- 
tisms ”’ contained in Scripture? Is it not a general one, which is 
not affected by withdrawing from the region of fixed dogma a par- 
ticular which lies beyond it? Wall thus refers to the “ doctrine of 
baptisms” mentioned in this Epistle :—‘ The Epistle to the He- 
brews, ch. vi. v. 2, speaking of some things which are styled ‘ prin- 
ciples of the Oracles of God,’ reckons amongst them the ‘ doctrine 
of baptisms and of laying on of hands.’ Now whether the meaning 
of that place be to reckon both these as things that must be believed 
and owned by all that shall be saved, is a question that needs not 
to be discussed here. For suppose it be; both these parties do 
own baptism; they differ only about the time or manner of receiv- 
ing it.” History of Infant Baptism, vol. 11. p. 549. 


Note 4, p. 32. 


“ Dicimus ad baptismum infantes credere per vim verbt, quo exor- 
cizabantur, et per fidem Hcclesiz eos offerentis et eis fidem orationt- 
bus suis impetrantis. Alioqui mera et intolerabilia essent mendacia, 
quando baptizans a parvulo querit an credat, non baptizaturus, 
nisi vice ejus respondeatur Credo. Ut quid interrogat an credat, 
si certum est eos non credere? Ut Cochleus contendit. Esto 
Augustinus sic aliquando dicat; sed Cochlezo satis sit esse sic ab 
homine dictum: nos volumus hoe dictum divinis testimoniis pro- 
bari. Quin asserimus parvulos prorsus non esse baptizandos, si 
verum est, in baptismo non credere, ne illudatur majestatis Sacra-— 
mentum et verbum.” Lutherus contra Cochleum, apud Bellarm., 
t. 11. p. 252. ‘* Lutherus volebat fidem in parvulisesse ante baptis- 
mum ut posset vere responderi ministro baptizaturo parvulum cre- 
dere.” Bellarmine, ibid. p. 256. 

Bellarmine himself witnesses to the difficulty of justification 
without faith :—* Infantes non justificantur sine ulla fide, quia 
Scriptura affirmat fidem esse medium ad salutem necessarium . . .« 
Item Rom. 3, ‘ Arbitramur hominem justificari per fidem:’ quod 
passim repetit, et inculcat Paulus. Quomodo igitur sine ulla fide 
justificari et placere Deo possunt infantes? ... Apostolus in 


Note 5. 578 


eadem epistola capit. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, et 10, nihil aliud contendit 
nisi justificationem non contingere sine fide. Quare tribuere 
parvulis justificationem sine fide ... quid est aliud nisi contra 
verbum Dei fingere novam justificationem ?” Ibid. p. 256 et seq. 
He decides that infants have actual faith by prowy and by profession 
made in the external rite:—“ Parvuli actu credunt partim reipsa 
dum baptizantur, partim aliena fide ”»—and habitual faith really 
by infusion in the Sacrament—“ recipiunt infantes habitum fidei.”’ 

“Can the res sacramenti, the full and justifying effect, be pos- 
sessed by infants without any grace of faith in them P The doctors 
_ of the Church felt the difficulty of so concluding, and therefore 
(just as they attributed a moral nature to a child, though incapable 
of moral action) they perceived and defined that the regenerated 
child had the ‘ Habitus fidei,’ as a gift from God from the first ; 
which habitual faith being a heavenly gift is perfect and capable 
of spiritual action in future life. The consequences of any contrary 
conclusion might, if closely pressed, be fatal to the whole doctrine 
of the new birth in baptism. Baptized infants would be ‘ membra 
Christi,’ justified without faith, and baptized adults ‘membra 
Christi, fide justificati.’ It would be impossible even to conceive 
of two such classes of members, as pertaining to one spiritual 
body.” A Discourse on Heresy and Open Questions, by W. J. 
Irons, B.D. 

While the Schoolmen, however, acknowledged the difficulty of 
justification without faith, their scheme of infant justification in 
baptism was no solution of it, because in Scripture faith precedes 
justification, as the condition of it; whereas in the Scholastic 
scheme the faith of the infant is the Divine gift in justification, 
and does not precede but is implanted in baptism. The Divines of 
the Reformation professed to solve the difficulty by the doctrine 
of “ prevenient grace,” which implanted faith in the infant before 
baptism. 


Norte 5, p. 33. 
St. Augustine treats the want of faith in the infant and the want 
of baptism in the adult as analogous wants. ‘‘Sicut in latrone 


quia per necessitatem corporaliter defuit [sanctificatio Sacramenti] 
perfecta salus est quia per pietatem spiritualiter adfuit : sic et cum 
ipsa preesto est, si per necessitatem desit quod latroni adfuit, per- 
_ficitur salus. Quod traditum tenet universitas Ecclesizs cum 


374 Note 6. 


parvuli infantes baptizantur, qui certe nondum possunt corde cre- 
dere ad justitiam, et ore confiteri ad salutem quod latro potuit.” 
Aug. de Bapt. contra Donat. 1. iv. ¢. 23. 

Dr. Pusey, in assuming that the passages in which “ St. Paul is 
speaking of justification,” are passages “in which Holy Scripture 
is not speaking of baptism ” (though I do not see how this can be 
said if justification is by baptism), witnesses to a certain difficulty 
in applying justification, with its Scriptural conditions, to baptized 
infants. Scriptural Views, p. 68. 


Nore 6, p. 49. 


The distinction between the grace of baptism and the “ cha- 
racter,” or “ baptismus,” which in the Augustinian use of the word 
has the same force as character, meaning a valid baptism, or one 
which may be subsequently of beneficial effect, even when received 
at the time without it, pervades the Anti-Donatist treatises. 
“.. .Sicut perditi Catholici, quos tamen Baptismum sine re- 
missione peccatorum et habere et dare manifestum est.” (De 
Bapt. contra Donat. 1. vi. c. 44.) ‘Qui in ipsa unitate perversi 
sunt et perdite vivunt apparet remissionem peccatorum nec dare 
posse nec habere ; habere tamen et dare et accipere baptismi sacra- 
mentum.” (Ibid. 1. vi. c. 1.) ‘‘Characterem multi et lupiet lupis 
infigunt.” (Ibid.) ‘Quo et ego sentio baptismum quidem Christi 
hzereticos posse habere, sed remissionem peccatorum non habere.” 
(Ibid. 1. vii. c. 3.) “ Consentimus hereticos remissionem dare non 
posse, baptismum autem dare posse.” (Ibid. l. v. c. 22.) “Sub 
eodem baptismate quod acceperat, ejus peccata dimittuntur prop- 
ter vinculum charitatis, sub quo baptismate peccata ejus tenebantur 
propter sacrilegium divisionis.” (Ibid. 1. vi. c. 5.) 

The Schoolmen invariably distinguish between the baptismal 
character and the grace of baptism, deciding that the grace is not 
received by adults without faith and repentance, whereas the cha- 
racter is. 

Lombard.—* His aliisque testimoniis aperte ostenditur, adultis 
sine fide et poenitentia vera in baptismo non conferri gratiam 
remissionis. ... Si quis ergo ficte accedit non habens veram 
cordis contritionem, sacramentum sine re accipit.” L. iv. Dist. 4, 
s. 2. 

Aquinas.—* Fictio impedit effectum baptismi . . . ad hoc quod 


te Sy a 375 


aliquis justificetur per baptismum, requiritur quod voluntas hominis 
amplectatur baptismum et baptismi effectum. ... Baptizari in 
Christo potest intelligi dupliciter: uno modo in Christo, i.e. in 
Christi conformitate; et sic quicunque baptizantur in Christo, 
conformati ei per fidem et charitatem, induunt Christum per gra- 
tiam: alio modo dicuntur aliqui baptizari in Christo, in quantum 
accipiunt Sacramentum Christi; et sic omnes induunt per confi- 
gurationem characteris, non autem per conformitatem gratiz.” 
Summ. Theol. P. 3. Q. 69. A. 9. 

“ Duo efficiuntur in anima per baptismum, scilicet character et 
eratia,” the grace being the “principalis effectus,” the character 
the “effectus secundarius.” S.T. P. 3. Q. 68. A. 7, and Q. 62. 
The baptismal character, “cum quadam consecratione datur ;” it 
is “ dispositio quedam ad gratiam,” which does not act “ quamdiu 
in homine apparet voluntas peccandi;” but does when the person 
repents : it is an indelible effect of baptism, while grace is defectible. 
* Character permanet indelebiliter, justiticatio antem permanet sed 
amissibiliter.” Vid. 8. T. P. 3. Q. 66. A.9. Q. 63. A. 2. Q. 68. 
we, 4. (). 66, A. 1. 

Bonaventure.—‘‘ Ficte accedens recipit Sacramentum et non 
rem.” Tom. v. p. 55. “ Multi habent characterem qui nec habent 
nec habueruunt, nec habebunt gratiam.” Ibid. p. 76. 

Ricardus de Mediavilla.— Ficti non gratiam sed characterem 
duntaxat recipiunt. . . . Fictus est qui verbo vel signo simulat se 
esse dispositum interius ad Sacramenti susceptionem, et tamen in- 
dispositus est.” In Lomb. iv. p. 50. 

Bellarmine.—‘ Baptismus ex communi sententia aliquid sacra- 
mentale confert etiamsi detur et percipiatur sine fide: igitur aliquem 
effectum Sacramentalem habet baptismus preeter gratiam.” ‘‘ Manet 
igitur ex baptismo effectus aliquis sacramentalis qui non est gratia, 
cum gratia sine fide non detur.” De Effectu Sacram. 1. 11. ¢. 22. 
“ Qui sine fide baptizantur revera non regenerantur, tamen rebap- 
tizari non possunt.” Ibid. 


Norte 7, p. 50. 


Calvin.—* Utilitas quam ex sacramentis percipimus ad tempus 


quo ea nobis administrantur, minime restringi debet . . . Nam qui 
in prima infantia baptizati sunt, eos in pueritia, vel ineunte ado- 
lescentia, interdum etiam in senectute regenerat Deus ... In quo 


si quis nobis dissentit tum regenerationis gratiam in multis acce- 


376 Note 7. 


leret necesse est, tum in reliquum vite cursum fabricet innumeros 
Baptismos. Effectum baptismi qui ad tempus nullus fuit videmus 
tamen emergere.” Tractatus Theologici, pp. 649, 657. 

Beza.— Neque enim baptismi efficacia ad id momentum astrin- 
genda est, quo homo baptizatur, sed ipsa Christi in eo oblata rege- 
nerationis et renovationis beneficia interdum illum precedere ut in 
Cornelio, interdum vero subsequi dicimus, in tis videlicet qui fidem 
non habent, sed suo tempore habebunt, quam ore profitentur cum 
baptizantur.” Acta Colloguu Montisbelligartensis, p. 372. 

“‘ Manet tamen verus baptismus, etiamsi regeneratio in reprobis 
et ad vitam eternam non electis, minime sequatur .. . Effectum 
tantum in electis suis exerit : non autem statim eo tempore quo bap- 
tizantur, sed interdum in senectute demum eum Spiritus Sanctus 
operatur.” Ibid. p. 385. 

“Vis et fructus baptismi non ad certum tempus referri debet quo 
homo aqua baptizatur. Non enim credibile est omnes interne bap- 
tizari Spiritu qui externe aqua baptizantur. Sed tempus docet 
quando aliquis sit regeneratus, nunc, quando videlicet homo ado- 
leverit.” Ibid. p. 397. 

Peter Martyr.—* In eis [parvulis] per baptismum communicatio 
heec et promissio consignatur. Perverso quidem ordine quandoque 
fit ut res collationem sacramenti sequatur, atque tunc promissio 
vel promissionis donum quod reipsa absit,non signatur; ut in his 
patet qui sunt increduli, et ficto animo ad baptismum accedunt.” 
Loc. Com. p. 583. 

Davenant.—“ Non necesse est ut sacramenta eo ipso momento 
quo administrantur efficiant illa omnia que figurant; imo, conce- 
dentibus ipsis scholasticis, Pactio dilatoria locwm habet, ewm in 
ipsa susceptione obex ponitur. Jam vero in infantibus ipse defectus 
rationis quoad actum est impedimentum quo minus habere possint 
actualem fidem, vel actuale studium mortificationis.” Expositio 
Ep. ad Coloss. p. 209. 

Gataker.— Id quod de futuro beneficio ac sub conditione certa 
promisso parvulo cuivis fieri potest; etiamsi parvulo ipsi usus esse 
non possit donec adoleverit .. . Etiam adultis non credentibus 

. sigilla foederis divini sunt sacramenta, atque illis quidem 
promissiones obsignant tum demum ubi crediderint efficaces 
futuras.” Disceptatio, p. 38. 

“The effect of baptism . . . is not to be restrained to the time 
when baptism is administered, but to be extended to the whole 
course of man’s life, whensoever he shall believe and repent.” 
Bishop Downame, Treatise on Perseverance, p. 393. 


Note 8. bas 


Bishop Bedell.—“ All that come to the sacrament, elect or non- 
elect, receive the pardon of sin original and actual, sacramentally ; 
and whosoever performs the condition of the covenant hath the 
fruition of that whereof before he had the grant under the seal. 
So that the sacraments are not nuda et ineficacia signa on God’s 
part to the one or to the other . . . Have they (infants) then that 
obsignation P Yes, doubtless, according to the form of the covenant. 
How is that ? That, repenting and believing, their sins are washed 
away. Then because they do not repent and believe, nothing 
passes. Yes, this passes,—the confirmation which this sacrament 
gives upon repentance and belief, the same thing which passes to 
him qui fictus accedit ; who when afterward he doth indeed repent 
of his fiction, and receives Christ by faith, hath also the actual 
enjoying of the thing so confirmed to him . . . Questionless they 
are partakers of the actual obsignation of ablution from original and 
actual guilt. Suppose they understand not this obsignation, nor 
receive this ablution otherwise than sacramentally? As I said 
before, the counterfeit convert also doth; though he put a bar to 
his present ablution of his sins, and consequently his own certifi- 
cation thereof.” Letter of Bishop Bedell to Dr. Ward. Parr’s Life 
of Usher, p. 442. 


Nore 8, p. 51. 


Waterland half adopts this mode of speaking. ‘‘ Regeneration 
in the stricter sense may admit of the distinction of salutary and 
not salutary; whereas justification admits not of that distinction 
at all, being salutary in the very notion of it.” (Summary View 
of the Doctrine of Justification, vol. vi. p. 8.) But what authority 
can Waterland give for this “stricter” sense of regeneration in 
which it may be not salutary ? Regeneration is unquestionably the 
grace of baptism, and the grace of baptism is essentially salutary, 
because it includes that which is essentially salutary, viz. remis- 
sion of sin. Any sense therefore of regeneration in which it is 
“not salutary,” is not a “stricter,” but an incorrect sense of 
that term. Waterland, in order to get a regeneration which is “ not 
salutary,” has to separate regeneration from justification, which 
latter he admits to be “salutary in the very notion of it.” But 
regeneration or the grace of baptism is, according to Scripture 
and the doctrine of the whole Church from the first, inseparable 
from justification, as necessarily including and containing it. 

Waterland explains the case of the “ Fictus” by this separation 


378 Note 9. 


of regeneration into two parts, one of which may be had without 
the other. Speaking of persons baptized in unbelief and impeni- 
tence, but subsequently believing and repenting, he says,—* Their 
regeneration is not a salutary nor a complete regeneration .. . 
their regeneration begun in baptism and left unfinished (like an 
indenture executed on one side only, or like a part without a coun- 
terpart) comes at last to be complete, i.e. actually salutary; not 
by a formal regeneration, as if nothing had been done, but by the 
repentance of the man.” (Vol. iv. pp. 437, 444.) But there is no 
authority for cutting regeneration into two parts, and giving the 
“ Fictus ” one half of it while he is wicked, and the other half when 
he becomes good. Regeneration is indeed a complex thing, and 
consists of parts, but these parts are not in actual possession sepa- 
rable, nor can regeneration be had in any other way than as a whole. 
Hither a man is regenerate or he isnot. If he is, he has the whole 
of regeneration ; if he is not, he has neither part of it, either the 
negative part, or remission of sin, or the positive part, whichis ac- 
tual renovation. Both these parts are tied indissolubly together 
in actual possession, and make one whole. What Waterland really 

«means by his non-salutary regeneration, or the first half, is the 
baptismal character, which though wholly outside of regeneration, 
is that in consequence of which the fictws becomes regenerate 
afterwards, upon fulfilling the conditions. 


Nore 9, p. ol. 


St. Augustine in his controversy with the Donatists, once or 
twice makes the supposition of the momentary remission of sin to 
the baptized impenitent adult, at the instant of the baptismal rite ; 
of which sin however the guilt returns again as soon as ever the 
rite is over, on account of the recipient’s state of impenitence. 
But this absurd supposition is not St. Augustine’s own, but only 
one which, with the redundant fertility of a disputator, he puts 
into the mouth of his opponent, in order to stop up every loop-hole 
of objection. St. Augustine defends the validity of heretical bap- 
tism by the parallel case of baptism without faith and repentance, 
which, like heretical, does not remit sin, but is still a valid baptism, 
1.e. gives a title to remission of sin upon the recipient’s subsequent 
repentance. Not content, however, to let the argument stop here, 
he imagines the Donatist objecting that the parallel is erroneous 
because baptism without faith and repentance does remit sin, though 


Note 10. Bae 


only momentarily: an objection which he meets with the reply 
that, if this is true, the same evanescent remission going the next 
moment and returning upon admission to the true Church, will 
attach to heretical baptism. The supposition, however, is only an 
argumentative one, which he puts into the mouth of his oppo- 
nent, and not one to which he attaches any truth himself. As Peter 
Lombard says,— Hoe non asserendo dicit . . . sed quzerendo et 
aliorum opinionem referendo.” (L. iv. Dist. 4,§ 2.) St. Augustine’s 
supposition of aregeneration or a birth of the Spirit which is not 
to the man’s benefit but injury (“ nascuntur de Spiritu quamvis ad 
perniciem, non ad salutem.” De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. v. c. 24, 
1. vi. c. 12) is in the same way a supposition which he offers as an 
alternative to his opponent;? not one to which he at all pledges 
himself. The Donatist argument was, baptism in schism is not 
valid baptism, because it does not make a man to be born of the 
Spirit. St. Augustine replies,—Baptism without faith or repent- 
ance is a valid baptism, and yet does not make a man to be born 
of the Spirit: or if you choose to say that baptism without faith 
and repentance does make a man to be born of the Spirit, though 
not to his benefit, then I say that exactly the same effect takes 
place in schismatical baptism. 

When St. Augustine makes statements of his own on this subject, 
they are in simple accordance with the doctrine of Scripture and 
the Universal Church, that regeneration implies remission of sin, 
and therefore cannot be conferred upon adults without faith and 
repentance. “Quid est enim renasci per baptismum, nisi a vetus- 
tate renovari? Quomodo autem renovatur a vetustate cui peccata 
preterita non dimittuntur ... Regenerationem fatemur; quod 
si ita est, et peccata dimissa sunt.” (De Bapt. contra Donat. 
Pie in) 


Note 10, p. 54. 


The Scholastic dictum that the divine love causes good in the 
creature, as distinguished from human love which presupposes it, 
implies that the divine love of the creature is prior to the moral 
goodness of the creature. “ Differentia attendenda est circa gra- 
tiam Dei et gratiam hominis. Quia enim bonum creature provenit 


1 “ Necesse est enim ut unum de duobus concedatur: aut illi qui fal- 
laciter seeculo renuntiant nascuntur de Spiritu quamvis ad perniciem, non 
ad salutem ; atque ita possunt heretici; aut .. . potest quis baptizari 
aqua et non nasci de Spiritu.” De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. vi. c. 12. 


380 Note 11. 





ex voluntate divina, ideo ex dilectione Dei, qua vult creature 
bonum, profluit aliquod bonum in creatura. Voluntas autem 
hominis movetur ex bono preexistente in rebus; et inde est quod 
dilectio hominis non causat totaliter rei bonitatem, sed presup- 
ponit ipsam vel in parte vel in toto. Patet igitur quod quamlibet 
Dei dilectionem sequitur aliquod bonum in creatura causatum 
quandoque, non tamen dilectioni zterne cozternum. Et secundum 
hujusmodi boni differentiam differens consideratur dilectio Dei ad 
creaturam : una quidem communis, secundum quam diligit omnia 
quee sunt; alia autem dilectio est specialis, secundum quam trahit 
creaturam rationalem supra conditionem nature ad participa- 
tionem divini boni. Et secundum hance dilectionem dicitur aliquem 
diligere simpliciter, quia secundum hance dilectionem vult Deus 


simpliciter creaturee bonum eternum, quod est ipse.” Aquinas, 
8.) Ts Ima. 2da.'Q.170..A. 1. 


Nore 11, p. 88. 


I see no reason for abandoning the meaning I put in a former 
work upon some passages in Clement of Alexandria :— 

1. ‘O rarip avayevynoas rvevparti cis viobeciav nrious oidev Kal didet 
rovtous povouvs. Peed. l.i.c. 5. 

2. Ovras ody ématpaderras nuas avOis Os Ta Tatbia yever Oar BovAcrat, 
Tov OvTws TaTepa emyvovtas Su VdaTos avayevinOevras. Strom. 1. ili.c. 12. 


« St. Clement,” says the Reviewer, “ distinguishes between re- 
generation itself and these dispositions which are its results.” But 
whether he does or not, he plainly mentions these dispositions as 
implied in regeneration. 


3. Act yap ov ra eldoda pdvoy Kataduretv, a mpdrepov e&ebeiatev, dAda 
kal Ta épya Tov mporéepou Biov Tov ev TvEvpaTL avayevvapevov. Strom. 


tae. 43: 


I remarked, “ The det here means that the regenerate man must 
act so in consistency, and to verify his name and profession as re- 
generate.” To this the reviewer replies, “ We do not see any 
ground for this observation: de¢ seems to mean ‘ought’ in the 
sense of ‘it is right;’ what we are bound to do, what is our duty.” 
I still maintain that mineis the natural explanation of the passage, 
i.e. that it means more than that a man having been endowed 
with a faculty, should use it in action, viz. that being an actually 


Note 12. 381 


holy person by the new birth of the Spirit, he should act throughout 
in accordance with this character. The appeal of Clement appears 
to be the appeal of St. Paul,—‘* How shall we that are dead to sin 
live any longer therein?” we who by regeneration are in a state of 
actual holiness, must not go back to our former carnal life. 


° ~ . , ek eT ‘ \ > c x , , 

4, "Here, jxete, ® veodaia 7 enn Hv yap py av&ts ws Ta madia yern- 

‘ > ~ ig ‘ ¢ \ \ A 4” Ld > 
oeobe Kai dvayenmOnre, as hyoiv 7 ypapy, Tov 6vTws dvta warépa ov 
\ > , >» > \ > o Ld > \ 7 -~ 
Hy amoddBnte, ovS ov pn eioeNevoecGe more eis tHv Bacideiay Tov 


ovpavav, Ad Gentes, c. 9. 


IT assumed that this passage referred to Matt. xvii. 3, "Eay jp) 
orpagpire kat yerno Ge @s ra matdia, ov peice Byte eis THY Bacidelay TOY 
ovpavar, and that Clement used avayevynOjre as a synonym for 
otpapynre. Some reference to Matt. xviii. 3is not questioned by 
my reviewer, but that dvayevynOjre is used by Clement as a synonym 
for orpaPpyre, is disputed and denied, and the term dvayevmnéjre 
made to refer rather to John ii. 5: the argument being that 
Clement quotes this Matt. xviii. 3 in another passage, with the 
special caution that it did not refer to “ the regeneration,”—ov rv 
avayévrnow evtaida addAnyopay (Prdag. 1. i. c. 5). But “the re- 
generation” which is meant in this caution, is, as the reviewer 
himself would be the first to assert, the regeneration which was 
specially connected with and indeed used as synonymous with 
baptism. This is only a caution then against understanding bap- 
tismal regeneration, not against understanding regeneration, in 
the natural and antecedent sense of the word, to be referred to in 
Matt. xviii. 3. It is admitted that Clement does use the term 
* regeneration ” in this general sense, or sense of conversion ; why 
should it not be used, then, in this sense in the above extract, 
which has all the appearance of referrmg to Matt. xviii.3? But 
however this question may be decided, the term avayeyynéjre in the 
above extract (even if supposed to refer to regeneration in baptism 
specially) is still identified with certain actually holy dispositions, 
and is only regarded as existing in company with that childlike 
temper which Clement puts forward as the Christian 46s. 


Norte 12, p. 86. 
1. Chrysostom.—‘* Benedictus Deus qui fecit mirabilia solus, qui 


fecit universa, et convertit universa. Ecce libertatis serenitate 
fruuntur qui tenebantur paullo ante captivi, et cives Ecclesiz sunt 


382 Note 12. 





qui fuerant in peregrinationis errore, et justitiee in sorte versantur 
qui fuerant in confusione peccati. Non enim tantum sunt liberi 
sed et justi; non tantum sancti sed et justi; non solum justi sed 
et filii; non solum filii sed et heredes; non solum heyredes sed et 
fratres Christi; nec tantum fratres Christi, sed et cohzredes; non 
solum cohzeredes, sed et membra; non tantum membra, sed et tem- 
plum ; non tantum templum, sed et organa Spiritus. Vides quot 
sunt baptismatis largitates, et nonnulli deputant ccelestem gratiam 
in peccatorum tantum remissione consistere; nos autem honores 
computavimus decem.” Homilia ad Neophytos quoted by Augus- 
tine contra Jul. Pel. 1.1. ¢. 6. 


2. Gregory Nazianzen, p. 81 :— ' 

Td hdricpa Aapmpdtns eatt Wuxar, Biov perdbeots, emepornpa THs 
els Ocov cuverdnoews. To hoticpa Bonbera ths aobeveias THs Nwerépas. 
Td daoriopa caxpos amdGects, Ivevparos akxoAovOnaots, Adyou Kowovia, 
mrdopartos éravépOacts, katakhvopos Gyaprias, Poros peTovoia, oKdTOUS 
kardAvots. Td paticpa dynua mpds Oedv, Tvvexdnuia Xpiorod, Eperopa 
nlotews, vow Tedelwors, KAeis oUpavav Bacrreias, Cons Gueryis, Sovd tas 
dvaipecis, Secpav ékdvors, cvvOérews peramoinots. Oratio 40, tom 1. 


p. 692. 

3. Hippolytus, p. 82 :— 

Acipo roivuv, dvayevynOntt, avOpwre, cis vioeciav Geov. Ka mas 

> \ , , \ id A b} ’ A 
now ; *Eav pnkett potxevons pnode hovevons nde eiOwAoAaTpevons, €av 
yy KparnOns bp ndovis, €av pr awabos tmepnpavias Kupievon cov, €av 
, a ? > ~ 

dmokéans Tov pirov THs adkabapoias, Kal amoppiys TO poptioy THs duap- 

/ dA > , \ / “a , Wee , A , aA 
rias, éav drodven Thy mavorAtay Tod SiaBddov kai evdvan Tov Owpaxa THs 

, / € , , A , / in 2 
riorews, Kabas pnow ‘Hoaias—dovaoacbe kai (ntnoare Kpiow, pvcaobe 
Gdixovpevor, kpivare 6ppav@ kat dicarooare xnpav' Kat devte Kat dvadey- 

~ / , \ dA > c ¢c / ¢ ~ c ~ ¢ 
Oapev, eyes Kiptos, kal edv Gow ai dpaptia tyay ws howrkovy, ws 
xdva Aevkavd, eay Sé dow ds KéKkwov, @oel Epiov hevkav@" Kal eav 

= a ies A > , x A a a , oy 
OedAnre kat THs Povyns pov akovonte Ta ayaba ths yns payerOe. “Ides, 
dyannté, m@s mpoeimev 6 IIpopytns to tov Banrtioparos Ka@dpouvov ; 

nn >) / 

6 yap kataBaivoy peta TioTews eis TO THS avayevynoews AovTpoy, O.atac- 
geral TO TOVNpG, cuvtdocera. S€ TH Xpior@’ amapvetrar tov exOpov, 
dporoyel Se TO Ocov elvat Tov Xpiotov, amodverat THY Oovdciay, evdverat 
Sé riv viobeclav, avépxerar and tod Barticparos Aaprpos ws 6 HALOS, 
dmaotpdntav tas THs Sikavoovwns axrivas. Homil. in Theophania, 


§ 10. 

4. Gregory Nyssen, p. 83 :— 

‘Ypeis 8€ mdvres door TS SHpw THs madvyyevecias eykadrorilerOe Kal 
kavxnua pépere dvakawiopoy TOY TeTNpLoY, SeiEaré prot peta THY poe 


- Vote 12. 383 


TUKNY Yap THY TaV Tpdra@v evaddayny, Kal THS El Td KpEiTTOV peTakoT- 
pnoews THY Suapopav tH KaOapdtnte THs TrodLTEias yvpicate. Tov pev 
\ ¢ , “ > Cad > ‘ ? “~ c \ A“ , 
yap trommrévrav Trois 6pOadpois ovdev addowovTat, oi S€ rod GHparos 
a , , a , , , 
Xapaxthpes pevovow apyeTaBAnrot, kal 7 THS 6pepevns Pvaews SiatrAaors 
> > , , ‘ , \ > s > , 7e > 
ovK apueiBera. Xpeia d€ ravrws Tivos éevapyovs emdeiEews Su Hs emvyva- 
, \ ’ ’ a \ a \ s > ‘ 
odpeba Tov apxiroxoy avOpwrov, cupBddois Ticit Pavepots Tov veov amd 
Tov madatod Staxpivovres. Tavra dé oiwat tuyydvew Ta kata mpddecwy 
A A 743 @ a “ , 
THs Wuyns Kuwnpara, ap av éavtnv xwpiCovea ths tmadkaas ocvvnOevas 
vewTéepav O€ Teuvoveca THS ToALTElas Oddy, cdaEer TaPds Tovs yywpipous 
as adXn Tis €€ adAns yeyevnrar, ovdev THs madaas epedxowevn yropiopua. 
. @ A 
Eott O€ obros Ths peraTroinoews 6 Tpdros, av jot Tea OévTes TOV Noyor ws 
, , 2 ¢ \ a , Ld 2 ae 
vouov pudaénre. “Hv 6 mpd tod Banticpatos avOperos axéXagcTos, 
/, ed cal > , , , / A ” 
mAeovextns, dpma& Tay addotpiav, Aoidopos, evans, TvKOparrns, Kal Et TL 
, A 
TOUTOLS Omotov Kal akdAovbov" yeverOw viv Kdoutos, TaPpeV, apKovpeEvos 
- 247 \ 3 , “~ > , \ , A 
Tots idiows, kal €k TOUT@Y ToOIs ev TeVvia peTad.Oods, PirarnOns, TLULNTLKOS, 
eUTpoonyopos, Tawav amAas Erravouperny mpakiv ack@v. . . . Towavrny 
a > 7 
TpoonKkey evar THY avayévynoty, oUTws eEaeihey THY pos THY dyapTiay 
cuvn§erav, ovT@s TodiTeveg Oat Tovs viovs ToD Ceod. Téxva yap exeivov 
pera THY yap dkovopev, Kal d:a tovro mpoonkev axpiBas éemickomjoat 
A cal a a 
Ta TOD yevnropos Nuav idt@para, iva mpos GpoidTnTAa TOU TaTpOs EavTovsS 
a , rn o 
pop odrtes kal oynuaticortes, yynovor pawapeba raides Tov mpods Thy 
eloTroinaw THY KaTa Yap kadecapmevos’ havdXov yap Katnydpnua 6 vdOos 
Kai UroBoduwmaios, THY TaTpLKHY Evyevetay ETL TOV Epyav Wevdduevos. Ato 
pot Soxet kal adros 6 Kupuos ev evayyeXiots Tovs Tod Biov Kavévas dvatar- 
TOY Huy, exeivors xpjoOat Tpds Tods pabynrevopéevous Tots Adyots, KaAds 
TOLELTE TOIS PLTOVTLY UMas, TpocevyedOe UTE TaY emnpeaCovT@v Uwas Kal 
SiakdvTwy, Oras yevnabe viol Tov Ilarpos tua@v Tov €v ovpavois’ Ott Tov 
a > ~ > / > \ oe % > fa} “ A , > \ 8 / 
jAwov avTod avarédXet eri Tovnpots Kal ayabois, kat Bpexer emt Sixalots 
kal ddiko.s’ viods yap mére yeveo Oat heyet, Stray THs TatpiKns ayabdtnTos 
\ ¢ , > ~ A A ¢ , , ~ > , 
TIV OpolwoL ev TH Tpos Tovs SuodvAovs PiravOporia Tots oikeiors hoyio- 
pots evrur@oarvra, Oratio in Baptismum Christi, tom. ili. pp. 378, 


5. Clement of Alexandria, p. 84 :— 
> / “~ > / A , > U e @ > I 
Avayevinbévres your ev0ews TO TeXELov aTrerAnpapeV Ov EvEeKEY EaTrEv- 
Sopev. “EdoriocOnuev yap, ro 5é eorw ervyvavat Tov Ocdv . . . Banritd- 

/, , c , ¢€ , , 
pevot Hati(sueba, HariCdpevor viorrocovpeOa, viorrorovpevor Teecovpeba, 
, > , ] ‘ \ ‘J / > \ ; <m! 
TeAecovpevor amabavari(oueba. “Eya, yoy, elma Oeoi eore, Kal viot 
‘YWiorouv mdvres. Kadeira: b€ modAaxas rb Epyov TovTo xdpiopa, kal 
oritpa, kal Tédevov, Kal Aourpdv. Aovrpoyv pev de ob Tas duaprias 
= - r 
droppintopeba’ xdpirpa be, © Ta em Tots duaprnmacw éemtripia aveirac 
= al - , 

hatiopa be dv of 1d Gytov exeivo Pas TO cwTNpLov emoTTEveTaL, TOUTET- 


384 Note 12. 





= a a \ > 
rw 80 ob 76 Oeiov d€vwrodpev’ Tédeov O€ TO ampoadees ayev. . . . Kal 
i , > \ ¢ > \ PU 4 \ ‘ Spa UA 
6 povov avayevynbeis, @oTEp OdV Kal Totvopa EXEL, kal Pwrtiobels amnd- 
~ A > , ‘ > ~ 
Nakrat pév TapaypHpa Tod oKdTovs, GrreiAnge Oe avtdOev 76 Pas. "“QoTep 
> CoN Bane, > , bé 4 8 6 > ! é a 
ovv of rov Omvov arogetodpevor e’Oews Evdobev Eypnyopaciw" paddov be 
rr . cad , lol 
kabdarep oi 7) indxupa Tov 6POarpav KaTdyew Telpopevot, ov TO Pas 
> la + an a > aA . A dé > 58 tal ey, 
aitois ¢€wbev xopnyotow, 6 ovK Exovow’ TO O€ Eumddioy Tais decor 
- > , > , \ , 2 o \ eee , 
karaBi.Batovres édevOepay arrodeimovet THY KOpHVy’ OUTS Kal ot BamTLCo- 
an ’ / >? , > 
pevor Tas emloKoTovoas dpaptias TG Sei mvevpate axAvos Oikny amorpid- 
/ A 
pevol, edevOepov Kal dveumdduaroy Kat Pwrewov oupa TOU mvevpaTos 
” , \ = \ > i a , UY 
ioyouev . . . . Kadcov pév obv dSuvarov ev TO0€ TO KOcH@ Teheiovs 
cal , n 
pas yeveoOar mortevoper. Tliotis ydp pabnoews redevdrns* dia TovTO 
\ c , > \ eh ey \ Pe > , € , 
hyo, 6 mustevav eis Tov Yiov Exet Conv atmmov. Ei towvy ot miotev- 
2, A A \ oe 
cavres Exopuev THY Cwiy, TL TEpattépw@ TOU KexTHTOaL Cwnvy daidiov Urodei- 
, ~ An a 
meta... ; “A yap n dyvoua cuvednoe kakds, Tavta did THS emtyvaoews 
> / a A \ \ ~ fe / + Tay , A > 
dvadverat Karas" Ta O€ Seopa Tavta, 7) TAXoS, avieTal, mioTEL peV avOpa- 
, o A \ ~ / e > / cal / 3 , 
mivn, Ocixh S€ TH xapiTe adrepevovy Tov TAnppEAnpaToY evi Tlawvio 
- > a 
happdko, AoyiK@ Barricpart. Tdvra pev odv amodovdpea ta dwapty- 
> , AA > ‘ a / / / , a A , 
para, overt b€ €opev mapa médas Kaxot. Mia xapis avy tov petic- 
> 6 xX / 
patos TO py) TOY avTOY Eivat TS mpi 7) NoveaTOai TOY TpdroV. 
"Ore O€ ) yvaous ouvavatéhrAce TO HotiopaTt wEeplagtpanrovea Tov 
~ , > , a =~ 
voov, Kal evOéws akovowev paOnral of apadeis, méTEpdv ToTE THS paOnoews 
’ » > a 
éxeins mpooyevoperns ; ov yap Gy e€xors elmeiv TOV xpdvov’ n pev yap 
. U UY 
kaTnxnows eis mioTw mepiayer’ Tots b€ dua Bantiopatt dyio madeverar 


cf U \ C7 9 \ ’ ~ > n>? A 
mvevyatt . .. . Ilavres yap viol eoTe dia triatews Geov ev XptoT@ Inaov. 
> =) € ‘ \ c \ A. a bead ~ , > > 

... Ovx dpa of pev yvwortixol, of dé Wuxikot ev avt@ TO Ady@, adr 


, p) , \ \ > a” ‘ ‘ ~ 
of mavres amoOemevor Ts TapKLKas emLOupias ool Kal TYEVpATLKOL Tapa TO 
, * 
Kupio. ... 
\ \ c ~ Sa Lad c / , 
Tov avrov tpomoy Kal jyeis emt Tois NuapTnpevols eTaVEVONKOTES, aTrO- 
5 lal / 
ra&dpevot Tois eAaTT@pacw avTav, SwAr(suevor Bamtiopati, Kal mpos TO 
d +f b , ~ c - d \ , a eLedy a ¢€ 
aidvov avatpéxopev POs, of mraides mpos Tov maTepa. . . . Apa eikoT@s ol 
r+ a A A yo =”, 
Taides TOU Q€od, of Tov pev madady amobépevor avOpwTor, Kai THs Kakias 
> , lal bd , \ \ > , a A 
dnexOvodpevot Tov xiT@va, emevdvcapuevor O€ THY apOapatay Tov Xpiorod, 
ao \ / \ ed > , BJ / / \ 
iva Kawvos yevopevos Aacds Gytos dvayevynOértes, duiavtov Pvdd§wpev Tov 


dvOpwrov. Pedag. L.i. c. 6, pp. 118—117. 


6. Leo, p. 86.—‘ Que hoc sacramentum mens comprehendere, 
quee hane gratiam valeat lingua narrare? Redit in innocentiam 
iniquitas, et in novitatem vetustas; in adoptionem veniunt alieni, 
et in hereditatem ingrediuntur extranei. De impiis justi, de avaris 
benigni, de incontinentibus casti, de terrenis incipiunt esse ccelestes. 
Quz autem est ista mutatio, nisi dextree excelsi?’” Sermo 26 (in 
Nativ. Dom. 7). 


Note 12. 385 





“Tpse enim est, cui non solum gloriosa Martyrum fortitudo, sed 
etiam omnium renascentium fides in ipsa regeneratione compatitur ; 
dum enim renunciatur diabolo, et creditur Deo, dum in novitatem 
a vetustate transitur, dum terreni hominis imago deponitur et 
coelestis forma suscipitur, quedam species mortis et queedam simi- 
litudo resurrexionis intervenit ; ut susceptus a Christo Christum- 
que suscipiens non idem sit post lavacrum, qui ante baptismum 
fuit, sed corpus regenerati fiat caro Christi.” Sermo 63. 

*Tpsa est enim nove conditio creature, que in baptismate non 
indumento vere carnis sed contagio damnatz vetustatis exuitur, 
ut efficiatur homo corpus Christi, quia et Christus corpus est 
hominis.” Ep. 47. 

* Manifestum est omnes in Adam damnationi obnoxios esse nas- 
cendo, nisi in Christo liberatifuerint renascendo. Unde vigilanter 
nobis considerandum est in ipso regenerationis munere quid gera- 
tur. Quamvis in unum concurrunt omnes ejusdem mysterii por- 
tiones, aliud tamen est quod visibiliter agitur, aliud quod invisi- 
biliter celebratur; nec idem est in sacramento forma quod virtus : 
cum forma humani ministerii adhibeatur obsequio, virtus autem 
per divini operis prestatur effectum : ad cujus utique potentiam 
referendum est, quod dum homo exterior abluitur mutatur interior ; 
et fit nova creatura de veteri, vasa ire in vasa misericordie trans- 
feruntur, et in corpus Christi commutatur caro peccati, de implis 
justi, de captivis liberi, de filiis hominum fiunt filu Dei.” Epist. ad 
Demetriadem, c. 11. 


7. Chrysostom, p. 88 :— 
ert 2 6a , a c , a »~ , > to ast ‘ 
itwes ameOavopev, pnot, TH Gpaptia, mas ETL Cnoopev ev aut; TL 
> A , 
eat, ameOdvopev; . .... « OTL vEKpOl yeydvamev avTH, MLoTEVOAaYTES 
, , co , ‘ 
kal botiobertes . . . Ti d€ eat vexpods ath yeyovevat ; TO mpos pyndev 
, 5 ~ 
trakovety avTH Aowndv. Tovto yap TO pev Bantiopa enoinoey anaé, 
eveKpaoev nuas avTn. Act d€ Aourdv mapa THs jweTepas oTovdNs KaTop- 
~ ~ 4 , , 
Gotc Ga airo Sinvexds’ Gore, kav pvpia emirdarry, pnKeTe Vrakovety, ada 
> “ ~ 
peévety akivntoy Somep Tov vexpov. “Omep otv 6 atavpds TO XpioTt@ kat 
¢ , PEF le tt A , ‘4 > \ aie ~ > a“ > \ 
6 tapos, TovT nuiv ro Bantiopa yeyover, ef kal 1) emt T@Y avT@y. AvTos 
‘ \ ‘ ‘\ > / A > , ¢ lal ‘ 3 , > , 
pev yap wapkt kal amebave kal eradn, nueis S€ auaptia auddrepa... . 
€ A \ c A“ At 2 \ ¢ ,  '¢ , 4 > 
O pév oapkos, 6 Tou Xptorov’ 6 be dyaprtias, 6 nuerepos. “Qotep ovv 
She * 6; ” \ 2 > Xa \ 8 a ¥ \ 
exeivos aAnOns, ovT@ Kat ovTos.... AAAa yap Saxpvoar pou Aotrov 
~ > cal 
emetot, Kal oTevaEar peya, Otay evvonow Teany pev Nuas amaitet piiogo- 
/ ¢ a , ‘ c ‘ > , € , \ A / 
diay 6 IavAos, méon b€ Eavrovs eedakapev padvpia, peta TO Barricpa 
€ml TO TpoTEpoy emavidvTes ynpas, Kal eis THY AlyuTTov avakdpntortes, Kat 
. , \ <a gs > 
oKopodwy peuynuevor peta TO pavva’ eka yap Kal €ikoolv Nuepas Tap 
CC 


386 Note 12. 


” 


> \ \ , , Led / / > a 
avTo TO Banticpa petaBaddcpevor Tots mpoTepois maALW ETLxXELpOdpeED. 
Hom. x. in Rom., tom. ix. pp. 625, 526. 

8. Chrysostom, p. 89 :— 
> ~ ‘ 3, ay, A > , A 3 A os: £m. ~ , ¢ va 
Exeivos ev aveotn Ty avdotagw THY amd TOU GmAov Oavatou' Hueis 

‘ Aa > , , ” \ \ > , > U 
dé dSutAodv amoGavevtes Oavarov Siumdnv kai THY avacrac.w anorapeba. 

/ b) ae , \ > A = c , / A b “a 
Miay pev dveornwey Tews Thy ard Tis duaprias. Buveragnpev yap avT@ 

~ , > co A “~ =. o 
ev T@ Barriopart, kal cuvnyepOnuev avT@ Ora Tov Bamticparos’ pia arn 
dvdorac.s amadXay? duaptnpdarev’ Sevrépa d€ avactacts 7 TOD GapaTos" 
” \ , , \ \ » 7 3 ” \ \ , 
eOw@xe THY peiCova, mpooddKa kal THY EAXdTTOVa’ av’TN yap TOAV pEifav 
> Ul \ \ / ¢ r > A x rn ) co > 7 
é€xelyns. TloAv yap pei(ov dpapti@v amaddayyvat 7 o@pa ioe anord- 
pevov. Aid TovTo émece TO THpa, ered) Huaptev” ovKovy ei apxT) TOU 
mecel 1 dpaptia, apy? Tov avactnva TO amaddaynvar THs Gpaptias. 
"Avéotnwev Aouroy THY peiCova avactacw Tov xaerov Odvaroy THs ayap- 
Tlas pipavtes, kal arodvodpuevor TO madaLov iwatioy, pr Tolvuy Urep TOD 
€AdtTovos amayopevowpev. Tavtny kal npets madau THY avdoracw aveo- 
Thuev, OTe €BarticOnwev’ Kal of THY Tod Bantioparos de viv éomépay 
cata&iwbevtes, Ta Kada Tav’ta dpa. Hom. contra Ebriosos et de 
Resurrectione, tom. i. p. 443. 

9. Chrysostom, p. 89 :— 
> \ \ > 4 \ > Led \ \ , > A \ a 
Ov yap xelp emayer Kaas Exel THY TEpLTOMNY TaUTHY, adda TO TVEdpA. 
Od pépos GAN 6dov GvOpwrov Tepitépver’ THpa Kal TOUTO, T@pa KaKEivo" 
> AM PAN wpa Ais RAL ass n ’ 2 IRS eee eee eS rare 
GANG TO pev capkl, TO Se mvEvpaTLK@s TepiTemveTat’ GAN ovx ws “Iovdator 

> \ , > WE cs ’ > 5 , rf) , Py x > i 
ov yap oapka, GANG dyaptnuata ame€edicacbe. lore kai mov ; ev TO 
Barricpart. Hom. vi.in Ep. Coloss., tom. xi. p. 367. 

10. Theodoret, p. 89 :— 
AwddoKet radw THs TeptTopns THY Siapopav. Ov yap eoti, Pyut, cap- 
A > A A > \ , . A , > \ ~ , 
KLKT) GANG TVEVpATLKT), OVOE YELpoTrOinTos adAa Oeia, OVdE TuLKPOv TopaATOS 
adaipecis, adda dons araddayy THs POopas. In Col. 2. 11. 
11. Chrysostom, p. 90:— 

‘O yap dmobavav, pyot, Sedikaiwrar aro THs dwaptias. Tlept mavrds 
, , an , of oa is b] .y > 7 \ \ ~ 
dvOparov TovTs pnow, ort @orep 6 aroGavev amndXaktat TO Aowmoy TOU 
dyapravew, vekpos kelwevos, ovT@ kal 6 dvaBas and Tov Banticparos. 
> ‘ \ e a 4 > A \ a , ‘ \ multe , 
Exedy yap draké améOavev éxet, vexpov det pevery Ova mavtos TH Guapria. 
Ei rolvuy dméOaves ev t@ Bantiopati, peve vexpds* Kal yap €kacTos 
dmobavay ovKéTt duaptave Suva av. Hom. xi. in Rom., tom. ix. 
p- dol. 

12. Chrysostom, p. 90 :— 
‘Oo Xd 6 (2) A > ~ \ € / > , co - 
iravOporos Oeds olkovopay Ty nueTeépay TwTnpiay €xapicaro Hiv 
tiv du TOU AovTpOd THs Tadvyyevedias avakainowy, iva amroGEpevor TOV 
Tadav dvOpwrov Toutéott Tas mpa&ers Tas Tovnpas Kat evOvodwevot TOV 
véov, emi Thy THs apetns 6d0v Badig¢oper. Hom. xl. in Gen., tom. iv. 
p- 409. 


Note 13. 387 


—, 





13. P. 91:— 

‘ , »” \ ‘ \ , , \ \ \ , 

Mn Toivuy rt mpds Ta Bi@rikd pelr@pev KeNvores, pr) TEpL TpYpry Tpa- 
mens, unde mepl moduréAccayv iwatiwv’ Kal yap eyes ipatuov peyroroy, 
Exes TpareCav mvevparixny, exes THY Oday THY avo, Kal TavTa cou 6 

, , be ‘ / 
Xpioros yivera, kal tpame(a Kal ipdriov, Kal oikos kal Kesbadn, Kal pica. 
7 = , ° 
Oca yap eis Xptorov €BantiaOnte Xpiotov evedvoacbe. Ad Illumi- 
natos Catechesis, 2, tom. i. p. 236. 

14. P. 91:— 

Tovro yap €ort madtyyevecia. KaOarep yap émi oikias caOpas Siaket- 
pens ovdeis trootnpiopa TiOnow ovde cuppamTet Tais maXacais oiKoSopais, 
d\Xa péxpe Tov OepeNiwy adriv Katadicas ovtas dvobev aviotnor Kal 
> , ° So BaD. 8 > , é > > , Bune > >» 
avakatvi€el, oUT@ Kal avTOs eroingev’ OK ETETKEVaTEY Tuas GAN dvobev 
Kateckevace., Tovto yap €oti—'‘ kal avaxawooews Tvevparos dyiov.” 
"Avobev enoinae kawovs. Hom. iil. in Ep. ad Tit., tom. xi. p. 761. 

15. P. 91. Theodoret, Ep. Rom. 6. 3 :— 

’HpynOns, dnot, THy Guapriav, Kal vexpos avtH yé ito XpicTd 

pynOns, pnot, THv Guaptiay, Kal vexpods ait yéyovas, kal TH Xpiore 
a re Ul , 2 
auveradns’ Tas Toivuy oidy TE GE THY Exeivny Guapriay béEacba ; 


Nore 13, p. 101. 


Peter Lombard.— Ea (gratia) preeparatur hominis voluntas ut 
sit bona, bonumque efficaciter velit . . . Et si diligenter intendas, 
monstratur que sit ipsa gratia voluntatem .preveniens et pre- 
parans, scilicet fides cwm dilectione.” lL. ii. Dist. 26,§1.4. Grace 
is characterized as effective or securing that for which it is 
given, according to the Augustinian definition, De Preed. ec. 5, 
“Posse habere fidem sicut posse habere charitatem nature est 
hominum ; habere autem fidem sicut habere charitatem gratic est 
fidelium.” 

Aquinas.—*‘ Gratia aliquid ponit in eo qui gratiam accipit .. . 
Quamlibet Dei dilectionem sequitur aliquod bonum in creatura 
causatum. Et secundum hujusmodi boni differentiam differens 
consideratur dilectio Dei ad creaturam: una quidem communis 
secundum quam esse naturale rebus creatis largitur, alia specialis 
secundum quam trahit creaturam ad participationem divini boni 
. .. Causatur ex dilectione divina quod est in homine Deo gratum.” 
S. T. Ima. 2de.Q.110.A.1. “ Gratia comparatur ad voluntatem, 
ut movensad motum.” Ibid. A.4. “ Gratia est nitor anime sane- 
tum concilians amorem, sed nitor animee est queedam qualitas sicut 
et pulchritudo corporis. Ergo gratia est quedam qualitas.” Ibid. 

cc 2 


388 Note 4. 





A.2. “Gratia dicitur facere gratum formaliter, scilicet quia per 
hane homo justificatur, et dignus efficitur vocari Deo gratus.” 
Ibid. Q. 111. A. 1. “Deus non sine nobis nos justificat, quia per 
motum liberi arbitru, dum justiticamur, Dei justitiz consentimus. 
Ille tamen motus non est causa gratie sed effectus, unde tota 
operatio pertinet ad gratiam.” Ibid. A. 2. 

“Virtutes dicuntur theologice, tum quia habent Deum pro 
objecto, tum quia a solo Deo nobis infunduntur ... Iste virtutes 
non dicuntur divinz sicut quibus Deus sit virtuosus, sed sicut qui- 
bus nos eficimur virtuosi a Deo.” Ibid. Q. 62. A.1. “ Virtutes 
acquisitz per actus humanos sunt dispositiones quibus homo con- 
venienter disponitur in ordine ad naturam. Virtutes autem infuse 
disponunt homines altiori modo et ad altiorem finem. Et secun- 
dum acceptionem hujusmodi dicimur regenerari in filios Dei.” 
Ibid. Q. 110. A. 3. “ Deus movet omnia secundum modum unius- 
cujusque .. . Et ideo in eo qui habet usum liberi arbitrii non fit 
motio a Deo ad justitiam absque motu liberi arbitrii; sed ita in- 
fundit donum gratiz justificantis, quod etiam simul cum hoc movet 
liberum arbitrium ad donum acceptandum.” Ibid. Q. 113. A. 3. 
“Deus movet voluntatem hominis sicut universalis motor ad uni- 
versale objectum voluntatis, quodest bonum . . . Specialiter Deus 
movet aliquos ad aliquid determinate volendum quod est bonum, 
sicut in his quos movet per gratiam.” Ibid. Q. 9. A. 6. See 
Chapters ix. and x., on the Scholastic Doctrines of Necessity and 
Predestination, in the “Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of 
Predestination.”’ 

Alexander Alensis.— Gratia qua aliquis dicitur esse gratus Deo 
necessario ponit aliquid bonum in gratificato, quo est gratus Deo: 
illud autem quo est gratus Deo est illud quo est Deiformis vel 
assimilatus Deo . . . ponit aliquid in ipso quo dicitur assimilatus 
Deo, per quam assimilationem est dignus vite eterne.” Sum. 
Vheol. t. 11. p. 460. 


Nore 14, p. 104. 


“ Solet etiam querisi parvulis in baptismo datur gratia qua, 
cum tempus habuerint utendi libero arbitrio, possint bene velle et 
operari. De adultis enim qui digne recipiunt sacramentum non 
ambigitur quin gratiam operantem et cooperantem perceperint ; 
quee in vacuum eis redit, si per liberum arbitrium post mortaliter 
deliquerint, qui merito peccati gratiam appositam perdunt. Unde 


. Node 14. 389 


dicuntur contumeliam Spiritui Sancto facere, et ipsuma se fugare. 
De parvulis autem qui nondum ratione utuntur questio est an in 
baptismo receperint gratiam, qua ad majorem venientes etatem 
possint velle et operari bonum. Videtur quod non receperint, quia 
gratia illa charitas est et fides que voluntatem preparat et adjuvat. 
Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem? Si vero gra- 
tiam non receperint, qua bene operari possint cum fuerint adulti, 
non ergo sufficit eis in hoc statu gratia in baptismo data, nec per 
illam possunt modo boni esse, nisi alia addatur; que sinon additur, 
non est ex eorum culpa, quia justificati sunt a peccato. Quidam 
putant gratiam operantem et cooperantem cunctis parvulis dari in 
munere non in usu; ut cum ad majorem venerint etatem, ex 
munere-sortiautur usum, nisi per hberum arbitrium usum muneris 
extinguant peccando; et ita ex eorum culpa est non ex defectu 
gratiz quod mali fiunt, qui ex Dei munere valentes habere usum 
bonum, per liberum arbitrium renuerunt, et usum pravum ele- 
gerunt.” L. iv. Dist. 4. 

Having previously decided the general question what constitutes 
the grace of baptism, Lombard comes in this passage to a point of 
detail, who are the recipients of this grace; and that part of the 
baptismal gift which consists in remission of sin being supposed 
to be the common benefit of all in baptism, he raises the question 
whether the other or positive part, which he has just called the 
“apposition of virtues,” and now calls “ the grace by which we are 
able to will and do aright,” is so also. He assumes that adults 
receive it, but moots it as a question which is still undecided, 
whether infants do,—an parvuli in baptismo receperint gratiam ; 
and decides it in the negative,—videtur quod non receperint ; on the 
ground that this grace consists of the virtues of faith and love, and 
that infants cannot, by reason of the immaturity of nature, possess 
these virtues, Sed quis diverit eos accepisse fidem et charitatem ? He 
declines deciding even that this grace will certainly be given them 
when they grow up, only saying that “it will not be owing to their 
fault if it is not, because they are justified from sin.”? This is an 
awkward conclusion, and not very intelligible, but it is no decision. 
Some think, “ quidam putant,” that grace is given to infants in 
munere, not in usu, to be converted to use subsequently as they 
grow up; but he quotes the opinion without endorsing it. 

2 The term “justified,” it must be observed, is not used here in the 
scholastic sense of the word, but in the simpler sense of acquittal, or de- 


liverance from guilt, as, indeed, besides the general context, the limita- 
tion of the adjunct—‘‘ a peccato ”—shows. 


390 Note 14. 


The naturai conclusion, then, from this passage is, that Lombard 
declines to assert that infants receive in baptism that whole grace 
which he identifies with the grace of baptism or regeneration, and 
only commits himself to a particular part of that grace as the 
benefit of the infant recipient, and that part, it must be added, not 
a distinctive gift of the new dispensation, but common to old and 
new. The distinctive grace of baptism was, in Lombard’s scheme, 
the “ apposition of virtues :” it was that which admitted a man 
to the new dispensation, and made him a new creature, a true 
member of Christ. The remission of sin was a negative gift, which 
had no peculiar Gospel rank, but belonged to the initiatory sacrament 
of the new dispensation, in common with the initiatory sacrament 
of the old; for circumcision conferred remission of sin, both original 
and actual, according to Lombard, before this office was transferred 
to baptism. (See Note 19.) Whileinfants then had the gift com- 
mon to baptism and circumcision secured to them, the Gospel sup- 
plement of this negative gift, or the infusion of positive virtue, 
does not attach for certain to infant baptism, according to Lom- 
bard. 

One thing is remarkable in the passage, that the writer does not 
seem even to recognize the idea of baptismal grace as a mere power 
and faculty. He includes power in it, gratia qua possint bene velle 
et operari, but he only sees this power in the form of a habit, an 
implanted habit of faith and love,—gratia illa charitas est et fides. 
This habit is indeed not only implanted virtue, but also assisting 
grace, que voluntatem preparat et adjuvat ; it being of the very 
nature of a habit to assisé the will to do what is right on each par- 
ticular occasion; but the assistance is contemplated in the form 
of habit, not of a faculty only. The Anglican reader accustomed 
to the latter idea of baptismal grace, expects in reply to the ques- 
tion, “ Whether infants receive in baptism that grace by which they 
will be able, when they grow up, to will and do good ? ” the answer 
that infants are capable of having a faculty implanted in them, 
which as they grow up they can improve into a habit; but Lom- 
bard disappoints him with a negative, on the ground that this grace 
is the virtue of faith and love itself,—quia illa gratia est charitas 
et fides, which infants cannot have on account of the immaturity of 
nature. 

The late Archdeacon Wilberforce explains this passage of Lom- 
bard as only meaning to assert that grace was a Divine influence 
as distinguished from an infused habit. “The doctrine of Peter 
Lombard differed in one very essential point from that of the later 


Notes 15, 16. 391 


Schoolmen. For whereas they separated those gifts which grace 
bestows upon men from their Divine Giver, speaking of them as 
habits infused into the mind . . . he identified ‘the love of God 
which is shed abroad in our hearts,’ with the Spirit which sheds 
it.” Doctrine of Baptism, p. 198. But this is first to make a 
mistake as to a fact. Lombard does represent grace as an infused 
habit. “Illa gratia virtus non incongrue nominatur.” ‘ Homo 
per gratiam baptismi renovatur, quod fit collatione virtutuiv.” 
“ Gratia illa charitas est et fides.” ‘ Virtues” are habits, and 
“love and faith” are habits. In the next place it is totally to 
overlook the point of the passage, which distinguishes between two 
parts of the baptismal gift, not between two aspects of the whole 
of it. Lombard has in his mind infants as distinguished from 
adults, but two modes of representing the baptismal gift would 
have had nothing to do with infants as distinguished from adults, 
as it would have applied in common to both. 


Note 15, p. 107. 


Whitaker’s answer to the Schoolmen would have been better if 
he had left out the extreme case of an education among Turks and 
Pagans, which would provoke the reply that a habit might be 
implanted and yet not developed on account of unfavourable cir- 
cumstances. The difficulty of the Scholastic hypothesis is that, 
under the favourable circumstances of Christian education and 
society, this supposed universally implanted habit does not come 
out in all or even the majority of baptized infants. “ Author hujus 
insulse distinctionis fuit Thomas, qui ait causam cur puerl, cum 
habeant habitus, tamen inhabiles sint ad actus, esse impedimen- 
tum corporale, ut dormientes, licet habitus virtutum habeant, tamen 
propter somnum non operantur. Sed hance esse fictam causam 
patet. Nam dormientes sublato impedimento possunt actus exer- 
cere: at si puer baptizatus transferretur ad Turcas aut Paganos, 
ubi de Christo nihil audiret, non crederet actu, etiam remoto etatis 
impedimento; quod indicat illum nullum talem fidei habitum habu- 
isse; nam si habuisset zetate jam provectus sciret alijyuid eorum 
que fidei sunt, et posset aliquem fidei actum ex illo habitu elicere.” 
Whitaker, Prelect. de Sacr. p. 287. 


Nore 16, p. 109. 


**Creaturis naturalibus sic providet ut non solum moveat eas ad 


392 Note 17. 





actus naturales, sed etiam largiatur eis formas et virtutes quas- 
dam, quee sunt principia actuum, ut secundum seipsas inclinentur 
ad hujusmodi motus; et sic motus quibus a Deo moventur fiunt 
creaturis connaturales et faciles, secundum illud Sap. 8. 1: H¢ 
disponit omnia suaviter. Multo igitur magis illis quos movet ad 
consequendum bonum supernaturale eternum, infundit aliquas 
formas seu qualitates naturales secundum quas suaviter et prompte 
ab ipso moveantur ad bonum zternum consequendum.” §. T’.1ma. 
Pde. Q.110. A.2. ‘“ Manifestum est quod omne quod movetur 
necesse est proportionatum esse motori; et hee est perfectio mo- 
bilis, in quantum est mobile, dispositio qua disponitur ad hoc quod 
bene moveatur a suo motore. Quanto igitur movens est altior, 
tanto necesse est quod mobile perfectiori dispositione ei propor- 
tionetur, sicut videmus quod perfectius oportet esse discipulum 
dispositum ad hoc quod altiorem doctrinam capiat a doctore. 
Manifestum autem est quod virtutes humane perficiunt hominem, 
secundum quod homo natus est moveri per rationem in his que 
interius vel exterius agit. Oportet igitur inesse homini altiores 
perfectiones, secundum quas sit dispositus ad hoc quod divinitus mo- 
veatur ; et istee perfectiones vocantur dona, non solum quia infun- 
duntur a Deo, sed quia secundum ea homo disponitur, ut efficiatur 
prompte mobilis ab inspiratione divina.” Ibid. Q. 68. A. 1. 


Nore 17, p. 118. 


Dr. Pusey testifies, in his well-known tract, to the sense of rege- 
neration, which has been maintained in these three chapters as 
the true one. “ Regeneration,” according to him, “ comprehends 
change of heart and affections, repentance, faith, life, and love” 
(Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, p. 47); “sin not only 
remitted,” but “slain and crucified, so that we must henceforth 
watch that it live not again in us, that we serve it not again” 
(p. 97); “the putting on of Christ, and the being conformed to 
Christ ” (p.*122) ; “the true circumcision, being disencumbered of 
the sinful mass with which we were naturally encumbered, the 
body of the sins of the flesh” (p. 126). Itis “the state in which 
Christians were persuaded to abide, the fulness which they had 
received from Him by whom they had been filled, and in whom 
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily ” (p. 126); it “ places 
again upon us the Creator’s image, renewing us after His likeness, 


Note 18. > Bae 





and impressing His cast, and to speak the high truth, His features 
upon our souls, as a seal gives its stamp to the body whereon it is 
impressed ” (p. 137): it had “ cleansed the hearts of the Christians, 
addressed by St. Paul, from an evil conscience, joined them to 
Christ, made them partakers of His holiness, and fitted them to 
appear before Him: after which cleansing they were to remain 
clean” (186). “The modern interpretation, which finds a de- 
scription of conversion in the putting off the oid and putting 
on of the new man ’’—one of the Apostolic phrases for regenera- 
tion—is, he maintains, “true as far as it goes,” though “ it loses 
sight of baptism ’’ as the channel of such conversion (178). 

In the opinion also of a learned critic and devoted disciple of the 
Fathers, regeneration “implies more than a mere capacity for 
goodness and holiness; viz. the actual imparting of those graces in 
a manner and degree proportioned to the capacity of the subject, 
with a tendency as well as power for their growth and future de- 
velopment; involves actual imparted grace and the gradual deve- 
lopment of the fruits of grace, although that grace or goodness be 
not necessarily either permanent or final.” ‘The view,” he adds, 
“has been pretty universally held by Catholics, that regeneration 
does imply the gift of real and actual goodness, according to the 
spiritual capacities of the subject.” Christian Remembrancer, 
No. 93, pp. 222, 235. 


Norte 18, p. 113. 


“ Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua 
ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati 
renovamur spiritu mentis nostrz, et non modo reputamur sed vere 
justi nominamur et sumus ... Caritas Dei diffunditur in cordi- 
bus eorum qui justificantur, atque ipsis inheret, unde in ipsa justi- 
ficatione cum remissione peccatorum hec simul omnia infusa accipit 
homo per Jesum Christum, cui inseritur, fidem, spem, et caritatem 
... Hujus justificationis cause sunt, finalis quidem gloria Dei 

. Instrumentalis sacramentum baptismi.” Sess. 6, c. 7. 

“Gratia [que baptismo homini prestatur] est non solum per 
quam peccatorum fit remissio, sed divina qualitas in animo inhe- 
rens, ac veluti splendor quidam et lux, que animarum nostrarum 
maculas omnes delet, ipsasque animas pulchriores et splendidiores 
reddit . . . Huic autem additur nobilissimus omniuwm virtutum 
comitatus que in animam cum gratia divinitus infunduntur.” 


Catechism of Trent, P. 2. C. 2. Q. 49, 50. 


304 Note 19. 


Wore 19,:ip:. 116. 


“ Ut sciamus etiam antiquos justos non nisi per eandem fidem 
liberatos per quam liberamur et nos; fidem scilicet Incarnationis 
Christi, que illis preenuntiabatur, sicut nobis facta annuntiabatur.” 
Aug. Ep. 157, § 14. “ Ante tempus Legis et tempore ipso Legis 
justos Patres . . . Dei gratia per fidem justificabat; et nunc eadem 
in apertum jam veniens revelata justiticat.” Ep.177,§ 15. “Sa- 
cramentum porro regenerationis nostre manifestum esse voluit 
manifestatus Mediator. EHrat autem antiquis justis aliquod occul- 
tum, cum tamen et illi eadem fide salvi fierent quee fuerat suo tem- 
pore revelanda.” Ep. 187, § 34. “Imo vero, ut sic loquar, 
quemadmodum se veritas habet, non nominum consuetudo, Chris- 
tianus etiam ille tunc populus fuit.” Serm. 300. 

Circumcision is described in some of the following passages as 
the sacramental channel, in others as the sign, of true justifying 
grace conferred upon the Ancient Fathers. 

Augustine.—*“ Ex quo instituta est circumcisio in populo Dei, 
quee erat tunc signaculum justitiz fidei, ita ad significationem pur- 
gationis valebat et in parvulis originalis veterisque peccati, sicut 
et baptismus ex illo valere coepit ad innovationem hominis ex quo 
institutus est. Non quod ante circumcisionem justitia fidei nulla 
erat... sed superioribus temporibus latuit sacramentum Jjustifica- 
tionis ex fide.” De Nupt. et Conc. ].ii.¢c.11. The passage as 
quoted by Lombard has “ purgationem ” instead of “ significationem 
purgationis.” 

Lombard.—* Fuit inter illa sacramenta sacramentum quoddam, 
scilicet circumcisionis, idem conferens remedium contra peccatum, 
quod nunc baptismus prestat.” LL. iv. Dist. 1. 

Bede.—“ Idem salutiferze curationis auxilium in lege circumcisio 
contra originale vulnus peccati agebat, quod baptismus agere reve- 
lates tempore gratiz consuevit; excepto quod regni ccelestis januam 
intrare non poterat.” Hom. in Circum. t. iv. p. 187. 

Bonaventure.—“ Circumcisio congrue fuit instituta tempore legis 
scripte ad deletionem originalis culpz.” ‘Tom. v. p. 19. 

Hugo de St. Victor.—* Idem salutiferze curationis auxilium cir- 
cumcisio contra originale peccatum in lege cooperabatur, quod 
nunc baptismus; excepto quod regni coelestis jJanuam primi patres 
intrare non poterant, propter quod necessaria fuit mors Christi, 
quee aditum vite patefecit.”” Tom. i. p. 261. 

Alexander Alensis.— Circumcisione tollebatur originale pecca- 
tum.” ‘ Quicquid arbitrati sunt nonnulli, circumcisione veteri 


Note 19. 395 


nedum peccatum originale tollebatur, sed et gratia etiam preesta- 
batur.” ‘“ Revera ex vi circumcisionis tollebatur originale in par- 
vulis et tam originale quam actuale in adultis digne suscipientibus. 
Virtus tamen circumcisionis per se et primo fuit ordinata ad de- 
letionem originalis;; sed quia gratia gratificans non compatitur 
suum mortale aliquod, neque mors spiritualis tollitur nisi per 
introductionem vite spiritualis, cum hoc quod gratia sive virtus 
circumcisionis tollebat originale, ad quod per se ordinata erat, 
tollebat et actuale.’’ Summ. Theol. t. iv. pp. 74, 75. 

‘Ex sacramento circumcisionis datur gratia tollens originale 
peccatum, et diminuens superfluitatem concupiscentie, et debitum 
tollens concupiscendi, et virtutem prestans resistendi concupis- 
centie.” Ibid. p. 76. 

Durandus.—* Circumcisio que auferebat culpam conferebat 
gratiam.” P. 293. 

Aquinas decides against the sacraments of the old law “con- 
ferring justifying grace” “‘ per seipsa,” even as anticipatory appli- 
cations of the benefit of Christ’s passion,—‘‘ Sed nec potest dici 
quod ew passione Christi virtutem haberent conferendi gratiam 
justificantem ;” arguing with his usual subtlety that, though a 
cause can operate before its own existence as a motive to the mind 
or a final cause, it cannot as producing an outward effect or as an 
efficient cause; and therefore that the Passion of Christ could not 
act as the efficient cause of the virtue of sacraments which pre- 
ceded that Passion. ‘‘ Nihil prohibet id quod est posterius tem- 
pore, antequam sit, movere, secundum quod preecedit 7m actu anime, 
sicut finis, qui est posterior tempore, movet agentem secundum 
quod est apprehensus et desideratus ab ipso; sed illud quod non- 
dum est in rerum natura non movet secundum usum exteriorum 
rerum. Sic ergo manifestum est quod a passione Christi, que est 
causa humane justificationis, convenienter derivatur virtus justi- 
ficativa ad sacramenta nove legis, non autem ad sacramenta 
veteris legis.’ The sacraments of the old law, however, are still 
pronounced to confer grace as signs of faith,—that faith which 
had, even before the new law, the power or office of justifying, “ per 
fidem passionis Christi’ justificabantur antiqui patres sicut et nos.” 
In this sense, then, circumcision conferred grace,—‘ In circum- 
cisione conferebatur gratia in quantum erat signum passionis 
Christi future.” 8. "T.. PP. 3. Q) 62." A. G. 

Bull on the other hand maintains that the “Old covenant 
laboured under a want of pardoning grace, or the remission of 
sins.” Harm. Diss. 2, c. 7, § 5. 


396 Notes 20, 21. 





Nore 20, p. 124. 


“ Hence I distinguish life into initial and actual. Not as if the 
Spirit were not actually communicated and did not actually work, 
or actually begin from the very first instant to'prepare the soul to 
future actual newness of life, by infusing some potential and 
seminal grace: but my meaning is that the Spirit doth not at that 
time ordinarily so plenarily change—renew the whole man,—as to 
work in him either faith, hope, or love, or so much as the habits of 
these and other graces. . . . Therefore we call that first work, Initial, 
thereby understanding the first disposition to or degree of actual 
regeneration, but forasmuch as that first work doth not (for aught 
we know) extend toa present actual change of the whole man in 
the same manner and degree, that afterwards is wrought in him at 
his effectual calling; therefore, we call that latter work Actual 
regeneration. 

“This ought not to seem strange to any, for just so it is in the 
course of nature. So soon as the reasonable soul is infused, there 
is in some sense (not every way in respect of degrees) a rational 
life. But how? The soul is there, and in that soul are included 
all the principles of reason; but the soul doth not send forth those 
principles into action (unless in some insensible manner by little 
and little preparing the infant unto human action), till afterwards 
that the senses begin to act. Before that time the reasonable life 
cannot wholly be denied to be in an infant, yet forasmuch as the 
infant hath not by this time the actual use of reason, for this cause 
we call the further perfection of his natural principles by tract of 
time attained, when reason puts itself into act, actual rational life ; 
and we term the same life, in respect of the first degree and princi- 
ples thereof, which together with the reasonable soul in the first 
infusion thereof it received, initial life.” Burgess (p. 241), Calvin, 
Zanchius, Chamier, Daneau, Whitaker, White, Ainsworth, and 
others, are quoted in defence of this position. 


Nore 21, p. 133. 


“Quid autem valeat et quid agat in homine corporaliter adhibita 
sanctificatio sacramenti . . . difficile est dicere. Nisi tamen plu- 
rimum valeret, non servi baptismum Dominus accepisset... . 
Usque adeo nemo debet in quolibet provectu interioris hominis, si 


Note 22. 207 


forte ante baptismum usque ad spiritualem intellectum pio corde 
profecerit, contemnere sacramentum, quod ministrorum opere cor- 
poraliter adhibetur, sed per hoc Deus hominis consecrationem 
spiritualiter operatur. Nec ob aliud existimo munus baptizandi 
Johanni fuisse attributum, nisi ut Dominus ipse qui dederat, cum 
servi baptismum non sprevisset accipere, dedicaret humilitatis viam, 
et quanti pendendum esset suum baptisma quo ipse baptizaturus 
erat, tali facto apertissime declararet. Videbat enim tanquam 
peritissimus medicus salutis eterne, quorundam non defuturum 
tumorem, qui cum intellectu veritatis et probabilibus moribus ita 
profecissent ut multis baptizatis vita atque doctrina se preeponere 
minime dubitarent, supervacaneum sibi esse crederent baptizari, 
quando ad illum mentis habitum se pervenisse sentirent, ad quem 
multi baptizati adhuc ascendere conarentur.” De Bapt. contra 
Donat. 1. iv. c. 23. 

“Et quare oportebat ut Dominus baptizaretur? Quia multi 
contempturi erant baptismum, eo quod jam majore gratia preediti 
viderentur, quam viderent alios fideles. Verbi gratia jam conti- 
nenter vivens catechumenus contemneret conjugatum, et diceret 
se meliorem quam ille sit fidelis. Ile catechumenus posset dicere 
in corde suo: Quid mihi opus est baptismum accipere; ut hoc 
habeam quod et iste, quo jam melior sum? Ne ergo cervix ista 
precipitaret quosdam de meritis justitie sua plurimum elatos, 
baptizari voluit Dominus a servo; tanquam alloquens filios capi- 
tales: Quid vos extollitis? Quid erigitis, quia habetis, ille pru- 
dentiam, ille doctrinam, ille castitatem, ille fortitudinem patientiz P 
Numquid tantum habere potestis, quantum ego qui dedi? Ht 
tamen ego baptizatus sum a servo, vos dedignamini a Domino. 
Hoc est ut impleatur omnis justitia.” In Joan. Evang. Tract. 13, 


§ 6, 


Nore 22, p. 138. 


“Negari enim non potest adultos credentes justificationem ha- 
bere etiam antequam baptizentur. . . . Quin et Deus existimandus 
est, ut est bonus, dum consignantur sue promissiones et sua dona, 
ex sua mera misericordia reddere illa auctiora.” Peter Martyr, 
Loci Comm. pp. 580, 584. 

“Baptismus Cornelio fuit lavacrum regenerationis, qui tamen 
jam Spiritu Sancto donatus erat. . . . Fides requiritur antequam 
ad Sacramentum accedant. Atqui fides non est sine Christo; sed, 


398 Note 23. 


quatenus Sacramentis confirmatur et augescet fides, confirmantur 
in nobis Dei dong, adeoque quodammodo augescit Christus in 
nobis.” Consensus Tigurinus,¢.19. © 

“* Sacramenta, ipsam nobis obsignando, fidem nostram hoc modo 
sustinent, alunt, confirmant, adaugent.” Calvin, Inst. 1. iv. ¢. 14, 
§ 7. 

‘Si Catechumeni vere credant, habent testante Domino vitam 
eternam, et sunt vere jam membra Christi et Hcclesiz, vereque 
justificati faciunt necessario bona opera. Nec enim his baptis- 
mate confertur primum justificatio, sed obsignatur eis, confirma- 
tur, et augetur.” Bucer, Script. Ang. p. 730. 

“This marvellous conjunction and incorporation is first begun 
and wrought by faith, as saith Paulinus unto St. Augustine :—‘ Per 
fidem nostram incorporamur in Christo Jesu. Domino nostro.’ 
Afterwards the same incorporation is assured unto us, and increased 
in our baptism.” Jewell, Controversy with Harding, Art. 1. 

Our Twenty-seventh Article on Baptism is very much in the 
language of Lombard. Contemplating the case of faithful adults, 
it describes the gift conferred in the actual administration of the 
rite as one rather of an outward kind, “being grafted into the 
Church.” Lombard says, “Qui ante erat judicio Dei, sed nunc 
etiam judicio ecclesiz intus est.” While the inner grace is only 
the increase of one already had, “ faith is confirmed and grace in- 
creased.” Lombard says, “ Adjutrix gratia omnisque virtus auge- 
tur.” The principle applies to our baptismal service for adults. 
The faithful adult 1s by the literal terms of this service wnre- 
generate before the act of baptism, and becomes regenerate for the 
first time by it. But the Scholastic view modifies the rigour and 
bareness of this line of division, and antedates his regeneration and 
justification. 


Norte 23, p. 159. 


Hammond in one passage maintains the infusion of a habit in 
the act of regeneration, but the position compels him to give up 
the assertion of the regeneration of all infants in baptism, and to 
fall back on the presumptive principle, “That makes a man to be 
truly regenerate, when the seed is sown in the heart, when the habit 
is infused; and this is done sometimes discernibly, sometimes not 
discernibly . .. Undiscernibly God’s supernatural agency interposes 
sometimes in the mother’s womb. . . but this divine address attends 


Note 23. 399 





most ordinarily till the time of our baptism, when the Spirit 
accompanying the outward sign infuses itself into their hearts, and 
there seats and plants itself, and grows up with the reasonable 
soul, keeping even their most luxuriant years within bounds; and 
as they come to an use of their reason, to a more and more multi- 
plying this habit of grace into holy spiritual acts of faith and obe- 
dience ; from which it is ordinarily said that infants baptized have 
habitual faith, as they may be also said to have habitual repentance, 
and the habits of all other graces, because they have the root and 
seed of those beauteous healthful flowers, which will actually 
flourish there when they come to years. And this, I say, is so 
Frequent to be performed at baptism, that ordinarily it is not 
wrought without that means, and in those means we may expect it, 
as our Church doth in our Liturgies, where she presumes at every 
baptism that ‘it hath pleased God to regenerate the infant by His 
Holy Spirit.’ Sermon xxvii. 

Here is the position maintained that in regeneration there is 
implanted a habit of faith and obedience which naturally produces 
“ multiplied acts,” when the infant grows up. But in what pro- 
portion of the baptized does this criterion of “acts” show this 
habit to be implanted P Hammond is in a difficulty here. He 
cannot consistently with plain facts say that it is implanted in aJ/ 
infants in baptism; and therefore he interprets the statement in 
the Baptismal Service as hypothetical,—“ Our Church presumes at 
every baptism that it hath pleased God to regenerate the infant.” 
At the same time he wants the bestowal of the habit to be consi- 
dered as almost universal,—“ It is so frequent to be performed in 
baptism, that we may expect it.” Upon this question of proportion, 
experience unhappily decides against Hammond. Thisis however 
a subordinate question, when the main point of universality has 
been given up. 

Bishop Kaye, in his Charge in 1852, adopts the position of the 
habituale principium gratie, and maintains that “in baptism the 
infant receives the habit of faith and obedience ” (Charges, p. 452), 
without however appearing to see the consequences of such a posi- 
tion; for he supposes himself, and quotes Hammond as supposing, 
that the habit “is ordinarily infused into the hearts of all infants 
at baptism.” What Bishop Kaye means by something being 
ordinarily given always is not very clear; but it is evident that 
he is under the general impression that an implanted habit of 
goodness may be the universal accompaniment of infant baptism, 
which has been shown to be untenable. 


400 Notes 24, 25. 


Nore 24, p. 182. 


Those who maintain that the consent of antiquity of itself estab- 
lishes an article of the faith, will have to decide some points that they 
had rather leave in suspense. There is certainly a concurrence of 
antiquity in the belief that unbaptized infants cannot go to heaven. 
So completely indeed was this taken for granted in the early Church, 
that the Pelagians themselves allowed the conclusion, though dis- 
owning the premiss for it, and dared not, in defiance of the whole 
Church, admit them to heaven, but assigned them a middle state, 
—an alternative which Augustine in the name of the whole Church 
emphatically rejected. ‘‘ Respondemus cum Augustino Dei judicia 
esse occulta, cur tot parvulos perire sinat, interim tamen esse jus- 
tissima. Nam etiamsi parvuli sine sua culpa non baptizantur, non 
tamen sine sua culpa pereunt, cum habeant originale peccatum. 
Qui autem fingunt aliud remedium preter baptismum, apertissime 
pugnant cum Evangelio, Conciliis, Patribus atque Ecclesic uni- 
verse consensu.’ Bellarmine, De Sacr. Bapt. 1.1. ¢. 4. 

“ Sane infantes, quia hance, prohibente state, non possunt habere 
fidem, hoc est cordis ad Deum conversionem, consequentur nec 
salutem, si absque Baptismi perceptione moriuntur.” St. Bernard, 
De Bapt. c. 9. 

Gataker.—‘“ Adversus antiquos qui hic adducuntur exceptio du- 
plex occurrit 1. quod sine tinctione discedentes fammis infernalibus 
adjudicarunt. .. .” Ward.— Hsto quod in uno dogmate vel in 
altero errarint, non sequitur illico in ‘aliis dogmatibus non recte 
sentire.” Disceptatio inter Ward et Gataker, p. 194. 


Note 25, p. 182. 


It is not easy to see how the condemnation of the Pelagian Ce- 
lestius by the Council of Ephesus, is even the implicit assertion by 
that Council of the regeneration of allinfants in baptism. In the 
silence of the Council we can assume no other reason for the con- 
demnation of Celestius, than that as a Pelagian he held the Pela- 
gian heresy, or the denial of original sin. The Council then by 
implication asserts original sin. But the assertion of original sin 
is not the assertion of the remission of original sin to all infants 
in baptism, which is a totally distinct proposition ; still less is it 
the assertion of the regeneration of all infants in baptism. Indeed 


Note 25. 401 


Pelagius (though he would not include in regeneration the remission 
of what he did not believe in—original sin) happened himself to 
assert the regeneration of all infants in baptism (Augustine, De 
Heer. c. 88. Contra Jul. Pel. 1. in. c. 3.5); and therefore that asser- 
tion cannot be extracted out of the simple denial of Pelagianism. 

The same remark may be made upon the First Canon of the 
Fourth Council of Carthage, which, among many points on which 
a Bishop elect is to be examined, inserts this—“ Si in baptismo 
omnia peccata, id est, tam illud originale contractum, quam illa 
quee voluntaria admissa sunt, dimittantur ;” and upon the Second 
Canon of the Council of Milevi—“ Quicunque dicit in remissionem 
quidem peccatorum eos (parvulos) baptizari, sed nihil ex Adam 
trahere originalis peccati, quod regenerationis lavacro expietur, 
unde fit consequens, ut in eis forma baptismatis, in remissionem pec- 
catorum, non vere sed false intelligatur—anathema sit.” Whether 
all baptized infants are recipients of the remission of original sin 
is not the question before these Councils; the point which they 
assert is, that infants have original sin to be remitted. We want 
the express statement directly by a General Council that “all 
infants are regenerate in baptism,” and we are presented instead 
with the adoption by a General Council (Chalcedon) of the canons 
of another, a Provincial Council, one of which latter asserts the 
doctrine of original sin, its remission in baptism, and its remission 
to infants ; all which three assertions were made by the Calvinists 
of the Reformation. The only relevant point,—the remission to 
allinfants,—is not stated. A formal condition of an Article of the 
faith, which the assertion by a General Council is, must be ful- 
filled with formal correctness. No General Council has imposed 
in terms the position that “ all infants are regenerate in baptism.” 

The Bishop of Exeter says (Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, 
p- 02) that by declaring original sin to be a hindrance to the benefit 
of baptism, he (Mr. Gorham) denied the Article of the Creed, “ One 
baptism for the remission of sins.” But the statement that 
“baptism is for the remission of sin,” does not exclude hindrances 
to such remission. A state of actual sin is, we know, “a hindrance to 
the benefit of baptism :” whether original sin is, is a further and 
disputed question; but it is not excluded as such an hindrance by 
this clause. 

In the statement of the Council of Orange (a small Council, 
A.D. 029, attended by fourteen Bishops) ‘‘ quod accept a per baptis- 
mum gratia omnes baptizati Christo auxiliante et co-operante, que 
ad salutem anime pertinent, possint et debeant, si fideliter laborare 


pd 


po a Vote 26. 


voluerint, adimplere ” (Harduin, v. 11. p. 1101)—the assertion that 
all who receive baptismal grace can fulfil, &c., has nothing to do 
with the question who do receive that grace. 


Note 26, p. 204. 


1. In order to make Augustinianism consistent with sufficient 
erace for all, “sufficient ” has been defined as such a measure of 
grace as suffices to put a person in sucha state, that “2f he died in 
that state he would be saved.” ? But thisis an inadequate criterion 
of sufficient grace, which must be sufficient not only up toa particular 
time, but for the whole of life. Is grace which accompanies a man 
up to the age of twenty, because it would have been sufficient for 
him had he lived to be no older than twenty, therefore sufficient 
for him if he lives to be eighty ? It must be remembered that upon 
every theory of grace, the man is spiritually dead as soon as ever 
the grace of God leaves him. Is strength, then, to swim fifty yards 
and no more of the slightest service toa man who has to cross a 
river amile wide? Not of the least, because when he has swum his 
fifty yards he sinks immediately, and no more reaches the opposite 
bank than a man who could not swim a foot. In the same way a 
soul that has had the benefit of Divine grace up to a certain age, 
as certainly perishes when that grace finally leaves it, and as cer- 
tainly misses salvation, as a soul that never had grace atall. And, 
therefore, grace is not grace sufficient for salvation, if (for any 
other cause but one which is not the cause here supposed, viz. ha- 
bitual and obstinate neglect and contempt of it) it stops short of 
the final stage of life, because whenever it stops short it delivers 
the man over to the power of sin, under which continuing till he 
dies, he perishes finally. 

For this reason the regeneration pro statu infantis, which is ap- 
pealed to as a universal accompaniment of infant baptism, even on 
the Augustinian scheme, is no proof that that scheme is consistent 
with the real regeneration of all infants in baptism. It is true that 
Augustinianism is consistent with every baptized infant being rege- 


3 “ Ag regards the doctrine of sufficient grace, suppose the matter 
were stated thus, that grace may be given such as that men may believe, 
shall live religiously, shall love God, be holy, be such that if they died 
they should be saved—who yet through their life being lengthened do fall 
away ; can it be denied that grace sufficient for salvation was given to 
them ?’’ Christian Remembrancer, No. 93, p. 248. 


Note 26. . 493 


nerate pro statu infantis,i.e. being in that state that if he died as 
an infant he would be saved; but this is not enough to constitute 
the baptized person regenerate absolutely, for which purpose it is 
essential that he should be admitted into a state of grace sufficient 
for the needs of whatever age or circumstances of life he may 
actually attain to, and that he should be placed in a condition of 
spiritual competency generally, and not only with reference to one 
particular contingency. An infant whois about to grow up to years 
of discretion is not regenerate in baptism, unless he is guaranteed 
in baptism such grace as is wanted for the needs of that maturer 
age. But Augustinianism does not admit of this state of sufficient 
grace being universally entered into at baptism. 

And this suggests the proper mode of treating the difficulty 
which is sometimes raised upon the supposition of an infant being 
after baptism immediately carried away by Turks or heathens and 
brought up in a false religion; in which case itis alleged that he is 
regenerate as being baptized, but that he has not subsequently grace 
sufficient for salvation; not having even the knowledge of the 
truth or the opportunity of belief given him. But itis a mistaken 
notion of regeneration that it is something done like a piece of 
magic ina moment, after which moment, nothing can interfere with 
the truth and reality of it. Regeneration is admission to a state, 
and a state of indefinite continuance, in which there is afforded 
grace sufficient for salvation. This state, therefore, implies in its 
very nature the outward advantages of the Christian calling ; it 
assumes that the person is brought up as a Christian; in the 
absence of which outward means of grace, the state itself of rege- 
neration does not exist, though the baptismal character may be 
received. 

2. The subtle distinction that it is the same grace in both cases, 
but that the elect have the power to wse their baptismal grace 
profitably, the rést have not, is hardly worth meeting, because such 
subtleties are in fact mere words without meaning. How can we 
distinguish between the grace and the power to use it ? The power 
to use the grace is part of the grace, nor should we get into a way 
of speaking of a new nature as if it were a material insertion in 
the man, which could be separated from all relation to his inward 
will and moral power. 

It is true that a man may have an inward faculty implanted in 
him by God, and be placed by God’s natural providence under such 
outward circumstances, that he cannot practically use it. A plough- 
man may be born an orator, wea ik the total want of education 

pd 2 


404 Note 27. 


hinder all development of his gift. And again it is true that aman 
may have one particular faculty implanted in him, and yet that 
the development and use of it may be prevented by the absence of 
other faculties, as in the case of a general who has a first-rate stra- 
tegical head without the nerve to execute his plans. But it is 
absurd to say that a man can have a general inward power which 
he has not the general inward power to use,—the general inward 
power to lead a good life conferred by baptism, which he has not 
the general inward power to use in consequence of his exclusion 
from the decree of predestination. 


Nove 27, p. 228. 


“Our Reformers from first to jlast agreed with the majority of 
the most distinguished Continental Reformers in maintaining that 
baptism (when spoken of in the abstract with reference to its true 
nature, intent, and purpose) is a rite divinely appointed as the 
instrument in the use of which a certain spiritual blessing is con- 
veyed by God to the recipient; and the consequence was that both, 
when speaking of baptism in the abstract, used the strongest expres- 
sions as to the value of the blessings conferred in it by God; and 
they did this both for the purpose of upholding the truth and 
counteracting the opposite error. 

* But it is palpably a misinterpretation of this language to infer 
from it that this Sacrament is represented thereby as having this 
effect upon all who partake of it; because such general statements 
refer to the case of adults, as well as infants; and in the former 
case itis admitted that faith and repentance are necessary to a 
salutary reception of the Sacrament. Therefore some qualification 
may have been held necessary in the latter case.” Effects of Infant | 
Baptism, p. 190. 

“Tn baptism, as Nowell says, regeneration ‘ efigiem suam tenet,’ 
or in the corresponding words of Calvin, ‘ Spiritualis regeneratio 
figuratur ;’ but, as both say, it is a figure or representation of such 
a kind ‘ut annexa sit veritas,’ because God does not deal with His 
servants by empty signs. No; wherever the party is suchas He 
accepts (for whom alone the Sacraments were ordained at all) God 
works with His Sacraments, and they not merely seal but give 
grace.” Ibid. p. 261. 

“ A conclusive argument no doubt may be derived from these 


Note 28. 405 


passages (in the Catechism) against those who affirm that the Sa- 
crament of Baptism is a bare empty sign, to which even in the 
case of the worthy recipient, no special grace is attached by Divine 
promise. But the question as to the character and qualifications 
necessary in those who receive the inward grace as well as the out- 
ward sign in baptism, both as it respects adults and infants, is not 
touched by the statements here made as to the nature and effects 
of baptism.” P. 458. 

The same assertion of the grace of the Sacrament, as distinct 
from the conditions of receiving it, was made in court by the counsel 
for Mr. Gorham,—‘* The acknowledgment of the blessings attached 
to baptism is common to both sides ; but this leaves unresolved the 
real question between us, viz. whether these are or are not received 
in all cases. It is admitted by the other side that no one detracts 
from the grace of the sacrament by saying that such expressions 
do not necessarily apply to every individual adult who is baptized ; 
and it must also be admitted that when Mr. Gorham affirms, in 
respect of infants, that such expressions do not necessarily and in 
every case apply to them, he is not detracting from the grace be- 
longing to the Sacrament of Baptism.” Dr. Bayford’s Speech, 
p. 102. 


Nore 28, p. 244. 


The application of the law of adult baptism to infant baptism 
so entirely pervades the theology of the Reformation, that it is 
unnecessary to cite passages. The Lutheran statements are given 
in Notes 4.and 32. The statements of the other division of the 
Reformation are as express, ‘ Baptizantur in futuram pceniten- 
tiam et fidem : que etsi nondum in illis formate sunt, arcana tamen 
Spiritus operatione utriusque semen in illis latet.” (Calvin, Instit. 
1. iv.c. 16, § 20.) “ Objici consuevit aliam esse rationem infantium, 
et aliam adultorum. Quoniam illi qui provecte sunt etatis fidem 
habere possunt, qua pertineant ad gregem Dei, que infantibus 
non est tribuenda ... Respondemus quod fidem expressam et 
actu requirimus, quoad illos qui sunt adulti; in parvulis vero Chris- 
tianorum qui baptizandi offeruntur, eam esse dicimus inchoatam,,. 
in suo, inquam, principio et radice . . . Quamobrem parvuli qui 
vere ad electionem Dei pertinent, antequam baptizentur, Spiritu 
Dei sunt instructi.” Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. pp. 583, 584. ‘ Si 
loquantur de fide actuali, illa Scripture loca que heec requirunt 
in baptizatis ad adultos esse restringenda dicimus: ad infantes 


406 Note 29. 


autem quod attinet, quia peccatores sunt non proprio actu sed 
hereditario habitu, sufficit quod peccati mortificationem et fidem 
habeant non proprio actu sese exerentem, sed in habitual principio 
gratiz inclusam. Spiritum autem Christi principium hoc habituale 
gratiz in illis efficere posse et solere nemo sanus negaverit.” Da- 
venant, in Coloss. c. 2, v. 12. “ Baptismus etiam in infante, non ut 
tu autumas, ex opere operato, sed ex fide solum recipientis gratiam 
operatur ... ‘ Parvulus,’ inquit Lutherus, ‘ fide nfusa mutatur et 
renovatur.’ ‘ Eos virtute sui spiritus vobis incomprehensa renovat 
Deus,’ ait Calvinus .. . Credat necne infans, Hcclesiz incertum 
est, sed nisi credere infantem judicio charitatis Ecclesia judicaret, 
nec sponsores infantis nomine sic respondere mandaret, nec in- 
fantem, nisi sic responderet, baptizari vetaret.” Crakanthorp, 
Defens. Eccl. Angl. Anglo-Catholic Library, p. 224. See Whitaker, 
Prelect. de Sacr. pp. 15, 285. Zanchius, Explic. Ep. ad Eph. 
p- 222. Chamier, De Sacram. p. 128. Nowell’s Catechism. 


Norte 29, p. 250. 


“ An hypothetical sense,” says Mr. Davison, “seems admissible, 
only when the Liturgy is speaking first of individuals, and, secondly, 
when their individual state is impossible to be known in those 
respects in which it bears upon the tenor of the special service re- 
lating to them; and when also, thirdly, there can be no ambiguity 
whether it be an hypothetical sense or not.” * Of which three con- 
ditions, the two latter, he says, are not fulfilled in the case of infant 
baptism. 

But when Mr. Davison laid down these conditions of hypothetical 
interpretation, he did not take into consideration that upon the doc- 
trinal ground of one school in the Church, his second condition of ad- 
missibility 7s unquestionably fulfilled in the case of infant baptism. 
On the Calvinistic ground the state of the infant “in those respects 
in which it bears upon the tenor of the special service relating to them 
is impossible to be known.” It is not known whether the infant is 
one of the elect or not, and upon his election depends his regenera- 
tion. Mr. Davison says indeed,—“ The Church is in this instance 
fully aware of the present state and condition of the subject to 
whom the rite is to be applied. The infant is born in a state of 
sin, and it is incapable of believing and repenting. This state is 


4 Remains, p. 294. 


Note 29. 407 
Se OO 
not unknown to the Church, nor, since it pertains at the same time 
to the application of the office to be administered, can it be disre- 
garded by the Church in that office.” But upon the Calvinistic 
ground this is not a correct or sufficient description of the state of 
the infant in relation to baptism, because in addition to these 
known circumstances, he is also regarded as the subject of an un- 
known Divine decree upon which his exception of the grace of bap- 
tism depends. The Calvinist, therefore, cannot admit Mr. Davison’s 
conclusion, ‘‘that the possible reasons of exception which might 
exist in other cases can have no place here, and that, since the 
actual subject is so definitely and universally known, the language 
of the service cannot have a concealed reserve in regard to any 
such cases of exception.” 4 

Mr. Davison’s third condition, that there must be “no ambiguity 
whether it be an hypothetical sense or not,” falls under one or 
other of the two following alternatives. If by “no ambiguity” 
Mr. Davison means no ambiguity to the interpreter himself,—that 
he must not apply the hypothetical sense to a statement, unless it 
is the only sense in which he himself can accept it; the condition 
is sound, but the case of the Calvinist fulfils it, because this is the 
only sense in which he can accept this statement, and there is no 
ambiguity about this point to him. If by the condition of “no 
ambiguity” Mr. Davison means that it must be the only sense in 
which any person whatever can accept the statement, the condition 
is not fulfilled in the present case, but then the condition itself is 
an arbitrary and untrue one. There can be no reason why a state- 
ment in a service should not admit of two interpretations, a literal 
and an hypothetical one, according to different doctrinal grounds 
taken by two persons, any more than why the language of an article 
should not admit of two different meanings. A person ought not 
to give an hypothetical sense to a statement unless it is the only 
sense in which he can accept it; but he is not debarred from giving 
it because another person can take it in the literal sense. 

When Mr. Davison’s canons of hypothetical interpretation are 
analyzed, they will be found to come to this, that the interpretation 
in order to be admissible must be necessary. But necessary in 
whose opinion? Mr. Davison assumes—in the opinion of every- 
body. But for an allowable interpretation an unanimous ground 
is not needed. It is enough if the doctrine upon which the neces. 
sity arises is held by some, and if those, whether few or many, are 


5 Pp. 295, 296, 


408 Note 30. 


allowed by the Church to hold it. The whole Christian body inter- 
prets the statement of the adult’s regeneration hypothetically. 
Why? Because the whole Christian body holds that the re- 
generation of the adult is conditional. Some of this body interpret 
the statement of the infant’s regeneration hypothetically. Why? 
Because some hold that the regeneration of infants is conditional. 
If the conditional rationale, then, of infant regeneration is not pro- 
hibited, those who hold it, whatever proportion of the Church they 
may be, have as much right to interpret this statement hypotheti- 
cally in the case of infants, as the whole collective Church has to 
do so in the case of adults. Mr. Davison’s canons, while they 
allow for cases of unanimous hypothetical interpretation, the 
necessity for which arises from plain facts or universally admitted 
truths, do not provide for this latter case of an hypothetical inter- 
pretation, the necessity for which arises from a doctrine which is 
simply allowed and held with consent of the Church. But this 
latter case ought to be provided for, and its omission shows not 
that the case itself is unsound, but that Mr. Davison’s canons are 
inadequate. 


Nore 30, p. 257. 


Mr. Faber (Primitive Doctrine of Election, p. 374) has mistaken 
the language of Melancthon. Melancthon, commenting on the 
text of St. Paul,—* Quos elegit, hos et vocavit,” says, “ Mox igitur 
monet ubi electi querendi sint, scilicet in coetu vocatorum.” (T. 1. 
p- 154.) Mr. Faber understands this as meaning that the “elect” 
concide with the “‘ccetus vocatorum,” or the visible Church, and 
fixes upon Melancthon the interpretation of the phrase “the elect” 
as meaning those who are elected to admission into the Visible 
Church. But Melancthon does not mean by the above that “the 
elect’ coincide with the “coetus vocatorum,” but only that they 
are im that “coetus,” along with others who are not theelect. “In 
hoc sunt electiomnes . . . nec fingamus electos esse queerendos eatra 
coetum vocatorum.” (Ibid.) ‘Semper in hoc ccetu sunt electi 
aliqui, i.e. heeredes seternz vite, etiamsi simul his admixti sunt 
multi non sancti et non electi,” p. 158. Mr. Faber mistakes again 
Melancthon’s assertion of an “ electa Ecclesia,” for the assertion 
that the Visible Church is the body of the elect, and quotes “ Scitote 
esse ecclesiam electam propter Filium ;” whereas Melancthon him- 
self immediately adds, ‘“‘ Et heec electa Ecclesia preedicatione colli- 


Note 31. 7 409 


gitur, et fit justa, et ornabitur eterna gloria.” Ibid. The “ electa 
Ecclesia ” of Melancthon is iz the visible Church, but as one body 
within another body; being indeed that inner invisible body, for 
the sake of which the outward visible body exists,—“‘ De Ecclesia 
visibili scire necesse est, quia in hac tantum sunt electi, propter quos 
et hic visibilis coetus a Deo colligitur et conservatur.” Ibid. p. 159. 


- 


Nore 31, p. 299. 


Archbishop Laurence quotes as an anti-Calvinistic statement of 
Luther :—* Deus non est crudelis et immitis tyrannus; non odit, 
non abjicit homines, sed amat;” but does a Calvinist say that God 
is a cruel and harsh tyrant, and that He does not love but reject 
mankind ? (B. L. p. 159.) Again Luther says, “ Preedicatio Evan- 
gelii universalis et publica est, omnibus patens quicunque suscipere 
volunt. Ac Dei voluntas hec est, cum eam sic invulgat, ut omnes 
credant et salventur” (B. L. p.165). But no Calvinist denies that 
* God will have ail men to be saved and to come to the knowledge 
of the truth,” which is a simple text of Scripture, though he accepts 
it with a reserve, which he thinks other statements in Scripture 
render necessary. And he will agree with Luther that to reject 
this statement of Scripture is both presumptuous and dangerous : 
—‘‘ Qui sentiunt Dei voluntatem non esse ut omnes salventur, aut 
in desperationem ruunt, aut in securissimam impietatem dissolvun- 
tur” (Postilla Dom. quoted B. L. p. 165). Calvin says, “ Cum utris- 
que [piis et impiis] Dei misericordia per Evangeliwm offeratur, fides 
est, hoc est, Deiilluminatio, que inter pios et impios distinguit.... 
Impii autem non causentur sibi deesse asylum, quo se a peccati 
servitute recipiant, dum oblatum sibi ingratitudine sua respuunt” 
(Instit. 1. i. ¢. 24, § 17).—** In exitialem abyssum se ingurgitant 
qui ut de sua electione fiant certiores, eternum Dei consilium sine 
verbo percontantur ” (Ibid. § 4). 

Nor again does a writer recant necessarianism, because he attri- 
outes a real existence and a true motion to the human will. Arch- 
bishop Laurence finds some passages in which Jmther attributes 
consent and co-operation to the human will. “ Permittamus dun- 
taxat Deum in nobis operari” (Op. vol. v. p. 592). “* Simasque 
Deum in te operari ” (vol. iii. p. 172). “ Sed non operatur in nobis 
sine nobis, ut quos ad hoe creavit et servavit, ut in nobis operaretur, 
et nos el cooperaremur” (vol. ii. p. 470, quoted B. L. 284). But 


AIO Note 31. 


consent and co-operation belong to the will as such, without which 
it would cease to be a will: nor therefore does a Calvinist deny 
such functions of the will:—‘ Fateor ergo expectandam esse fide- 
libus hane Dei benedictionem, quo melius usi fuerint superioribus 
gratis, ut eo majoribus posthac augeantur.... Hac quidem [dis- 
tinctione operantis gratize et cooperantis] usus est Augustinus sed 
commoda, definitione leniens, Deum cooperando efficere quod ope- 
rando incipit. .. . Quod dicere solent, postquam prime gratiz locum 
dedimus, jam conatus nostros subsequenti gratia cooperari, re- 
spondeo: Siintelligunt nos, ex quo semel Domini virtute in justitize 
obsequium adornati sumus, ultro pergere et propensos esse ad se- 
quendam gratiz actionem, nihil reclamo ” (Calvin, Instit. 1. 11. ¢. 3, 
§ 11). “ Quis enim ita desipit ut hominis motionem ajactu lapidis 
nihil differre autumet ? Neque vero quicquam simile consequitur 
ex nostra doctrina. In naturales hominis facultates referimus, 
approbare, respicere; velle, nolle; eniti, resistere; ... Ubi reenum 
in illis suum (Deus) erigit, voluntatem,...quoin sanctitatem et 
justitiam propendeat flectit.... Admonet (Augustinus) actionem 
hominis non tolli Spiritus Sancti motu... non destrui gratia 
voluntatem sed magis reparari.... Nihil jam obstat quominus rite 
agere dicamur, quod agit Spiritus Dei in nobis” (Ibid. c. 5, § 14, 15). 

In one instance indeed a statement gives offence to Luther which 
would not offend a Calvinist :—‘ Alii sunt qui heec verba sic inter- 
pretantur: Multi sunt vocati, i. e. Deus multis suam gratiam offert ; 
pauci vero electi, i.e. cum paucis suam gratiam communicat, nam 
pauci salvantur. Valde impia hee sententia est. Nam quis non 
Deum summe oderit, side Deo non aliter sentiat, quam ejus volun- 
tatis culpa fieri, ut non salvemur?” (Postilla Domestica, p. 57, 
quoted B. L. p. 161.) But before we draw an inference from an 
insulated case, we should take into account the character of the 
work in which this case occurs. The “ Postilla Domestica ” is not 
a theological treatise, it is not even a work which was written by 
Luther. It is a collection of ‘Home Sermons,” published by two 
disciples from notes taken down at the time, and published with 
Luther’s sanction and under his eye, but still not his written com- 
position. Nothing could be more natural than that Luther should 
in a course of practical discourses protest against the abuse of the 
doctrine of the De Servo Arbitrio, which had been great among some 
sectaries, who had perverted it to license immorality. But the state- 
ments of such a work have not the theological weight of the written 
statements of a doctrinal treatise. 


Note 32. AIL 





Nore 32, p. 304. 


The Augsburgh Confession lays down the universal proposition, 
fidem ir usu sacramentorwm requiri, and condemns the ex opere 
operato, without allowance for any exception in the case of infants, 
Art. XIII. Luther says, “ Nisi adsit aut paretur fides nihil pro- 
dest baptismus :” and to the objection of infant baptism replies, 
“ Parvulus fide infusa mutatur, mundatur, et renovatur.” Op. t: ii. 
p. 78. See Note 4, and p. 32. 

‘‘Deinde ejusdem farine est quod sentit infantibus, qui sunt ut 
ipse loquitur incapaces fidei, non esse necessariam fidem. Quasi 
vero ullus sit hominum qui cum sit capax imaginis Dei, non etiam 
sit capax fidei: aut quasi infantes sine sua quadam proprie divi- 
nitus collata fide, salutem consequi possent. Fieri enim non potest, 
ut sive infans sive adultus placeat Deo absque Christo et fide in 
Christum, eaque propria et divinitus donata. Non videmus infantes 
credere, sed Deus qui suos in omnibus creaturis gemitus quos ipse in 
els exciverat et quos he pro liberatione filiorum Dei, ut Paulus 
testatur, emittunt, videt et audit, tam acutos habet sensus, ut et 
infantium fidem, qua eos pro sua clementia, et quodam singulari 
modo ornat, intueatur et agnoscat.” Brentius, Apol. Confess. Wir- 
temberg. tom. viii. p. 386. 

“ Baptismus fidei signaculum est, et, cum sit fidei signaculum 
etiam in infantibus baptizatis, necesse est infantes credere.” Major, 
tom. ll. p. 345. 

I must remark here upon a mistake of Bellarmine in the inter- 
pretation of some later works of Luther, in which, he says, Luther 
gives another scheme of infant baptism, and contradicts his former 
statements as to the necessity of faith in infants. “ Altera sen- 
tentia infantibus nullam fidem in baptismo esse necessariam. Hance 
videtur etiam Lutherus docuisse. Nam licet antequam Anabap- 
tistee exorirentur, illa scripserit que supra citavimus; tamen pos- 
teaquam illi apparuerant, scripsit librum contra eos anno MDXXVIIL., 
et ubi ad hoc argumentum venisset de fide infantium, dixit nihil 
interesse sive credant sive non credant. Baptismum enim non 
fundari super fidem dantis aut recipientis que incertissima est, sed 
super Dei mandatum et institutionem. Et similia habet in homiliis 
de baptismo anno xxxvul. et xu. habitis.” (Tom. iii. p- 253.) That 
which Luther, in these Homilies and elsewhere, asserts to be 
founded upon the Divine institution, and not upon faith, is 
not the grace of baptism or justification, but the validity of 


* 


AI2 Note 33. 


baptism; which even when received without faith, he asserts 
to be operative subsequently upon faith existing. He says, indeed, 
* Baptismus rectus habendus est etiam non accedente fide” (Cate- 
chism. Major, Op. v. p. 639); and condemns the Anabaptists 
because they found baptism “non super Dei mandatum et institu- 
tionem, sed, ut aliud quoddam opus humanum, super fidem et dig- 
nitatem nostram, quasi non sat esset, Deum sic distribuisse et 
mandasse, sed necesse esset primum per nos eum confirmari; nec 
ante baptismum esse, aut eum valere, quam fides nostra accederet.” 
(Hom. de Bapt. Op. vii. p. 351.) But he is particular in adding 
that he speaks here not of the beneficial virtue of baptism, but only 
of its quality as valid baptism. ‘‘ Loquor autem nunc non de vir- 
tute sive efficacia et usu Baptismi, sed de ipsa Baptism substantia.” 
(Ibid. p. 352.) “ Alter potest salvari, alter damnari, eodem bap- 
tismo, sed id non pertinet ad suhstantiam sed ad virtutem et wswm 
baptismi.” (Ibid.) ‘Omnes eundem baptismum accipiunt, sed 
non omnes ejus virtutem et utilitatem accipiunt.” (Ibid. p. 363.) 
He only asserts that effect of baptism which takes place even in 
the case of an unbelieving adult. ‘“ Nam quanquam hodierno die 
Judeeus quispiam fraudulenter quapiam simulatione et malitioso 
proposito veniret se baptizandum offerens, nosque eundem omni 
studio baptizaremus, nihil secus nobis dicendum esset Baptismum 
verum et rectum esse.” (Cat. Maj. Op. v. p. 639.) He only speaks 
of that validity of baptism which Cyprian denied in the case of 
heretics. ‘‘ Hodem errore capti sunt et isti qui putant baptismum 
ab heretico aut infideli administratum, non verum esse Baptis- 


99 


mum.” (Op. t. vii. p. 349.) 


Note 33, p. 326. 


“ Effusio Spiritus Sancti promittitur in Baptismo, ut in Epist. 
ad Titum diserte scribitur—‘ qui salvos nos fecit per lavacrum 
regenerationis.’””’ Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. p. 580. ‘“ Nostra sen- 
tentia utrique huic (Justificationi et Sanctificationi)adhibitum esse 
Sacramentum Baptismum, scilicet significande atque efficiende.” 
Chamier, De Bapt. 1. v. p. 118. “ Baptismus est sacramentum 
regenerationis. ... Ipse vos baptizabit Spiritu Sancto et igne— 
loquebatur de efficacitate Spiritus Sancti in regeneratione, quem ipse 
Christus conferebat Baptismo.” Zanchius, Explic. Ep. ad Eph. 
pp. 217, 218. 


Note 34. AES 


“MM. Verum, annon aliud aque tribuis nisi ut ablutionis tan- 
tum sit figura? P. Sic figuram esse sentio, ut simul annexa sit 
veritas. Neque enim, sua nobis dona pollicendo, nos Deus frus- 
tratur. Proinde et peccatorum veniam et vitz novitatem offerri 
nobis in Baptismo et recipi nobis certum est.”—Catechismus Ge- 
nevensis. ‘‘ Baptismus nobis testificande nostre adoptioni datus 
est, quoniam in eo inserimur Christi corpore, et ejus sanguine 
abluti, simul etiam ipsius spiritu ad vite sanctimoniam renovamur.” 
—Confessio Gallicana. ‘ Baptizari est imscribi, initiari et recipi 
in foedus atque familiam adeoque in hereditatem filiorum Dei; 
imo etiam nunc nuncupari nomine Dei, i.e. appellari filium Dei, 
purgari item a sordibus peccatorum, et donari varia Dei gratia ad 
vitam novam et innocentem.’”—Confessio Helvetica Posterior. 
“ Baptismus est sacramentum institutum ad significandam et con- 
testandam internam per sanguinem Christi a veccatis absolutionem, 
seu eorum remissionem; simulque inchoandam per Spiritum 
Sanctum renovationem seu regenerationem.”—Declaratio Toruni- 
ensis. ‘De Baptismate itaque confitemur, eo sepeliri nos in 
mortem Christi, Christum induere, esse lavacrum regenerationis, 
peccata abluere, nos salvare.”—Confessio Tetrapolitana. 

“The form of expression which the churches use is indefinite, — 
and it is necessary it should be so because they speak of bap- 
tism, considered in the nature of it, when it is applied to those 
within the covenant . . . yet well knowing that all are not indeed 
within the covenant, although born of parents that are within the 
visible Church . . . yea, some propositions that are universally 
propounded have yet their limitations implied that are discerned 
by all rational men that either hear or read them. .. . In like 
manner then must the churches be understood, if they would de- 
liver themselves in universal terms. Because, in the Sacrament, 
by virtue of Christ’s institution, ordinary grace is given to all that 
are by election capable of it; and it being known to none who they 
may be that are not elected, it is more apt and proper to speak 
indefinitely.’ Burgess, p. 147. 


Nore 34, p. 341. 


Peter Martyr.—‘ Promissio non est generalis de omni semine, 
sed tantum de illo in quo una consentit electio. Alioquin posteritas 
Ismaelis et Esau fuerunt ex Abrahamo. Sed quia nos de arcana 


AI4 no SNE aes 





Dei providentia et electione minime debemus curiosius inquirere, 
ideo sanctorum filios sanctos judicamus, quoad ipsi per etatem se 
non declaraverint a Christo alienos .. . Nequeaudiendi sunt qui 
hac de re movent scrupulum ac dicunt. Quid si minister fallatur P 
Quid si revera puer neque est filius promissionis divine electionis, 
atque misericordie? Quia idem cavillus esse poterit de adultis. 
Nam de illis quoque ignoramus, ficte necne accedant, an vere cre- 
dant, an sint filii preedestinationis an perditionis, an Christi gra- 
tiam habeant an illa sint destituti, et mendaciter dicant se credere. 
Quid tu illos baptizas ? Scio dices, idcirco id facio, quod sequor 
illorum externam professionem, quam si mentiantur, mea non refert. 
Ita nos dicimus, ecclesiam ideo complecti nostros pueros et bap- 
tizare quod ad nos pertineant. Idque est ilis divine voluntatis 
tale indicium, quale est in adultis externa professio ... Vides 
ecclesiam esse que lavatur et baptizatur. Idcirco dum parvuli tin- 
euntur, constat ad ecclesiam pertinere; et ecclesiz partes vere esse 
non possunt, nisi spiritu Christi sint ornati. Quamobrem parvuli 
gui vere ad electionen Dei pertinent, antequam baptizentur, Spiritu 
Dei sunt instructi.”” Loc. Comm. pp. 582, 584. 

“Eodem modo hodie usu venit de liberis fideium. Habemus 
promissionem Deum velle non tantum nostrum esse Deum verum 
etiam seminis nostri; que promissio cum sit indefinita, arcana 
Dei electione infantibus applicatur; non quidem semper omnibus, 
sed certis quibusdam prout divino proposito visum fuerit. Quod 
quum nos lateat, sequi autem debeamus externum verbum quod 
commendatum est ecclesiz, sub ea promissione parvulos nostros 
baptizamus, quemadmodum suos veteres circumcidebant. Id fac- 
tum Anabaptist reprehendunt, quod neque de Spiritu neque de 
fide, neque de electione illorum parvulorum nobis quicquam con- 
stet. Verum nos ista nihil moramur: tantum respicimus verbum 
Dei quod in generali atque indefinita promissione nobis offertur. 
Executionem autem ejus Deo committimus, cum de illius electione 
non possumus judicare.” In Ep. Rom. ix. 8, p. 377. 

‘Quzerunt nonnulli cum nesciamus utrum infantes rem sacra- 
menti habeant, cur apponamus signum, etid, quod nobis incertum 
sit, obsignemus P Quibus respondemus, hanc queestionem non contra 
nos adduci sed contra verbum Dei. Is enim diserte przcepit et 
voluit ut pueri circumciderentur. Deinde respondeant ipsi nobis, 
cur adultos ad baptismum aut communionem admittant, cum de 
animo illorum sint incerti. Etenim qui baptizantur aut commu- 
nicant possunt simulare ac ecclesiam decipere. Respondent satis 
esse eorum habere professionem. Si mentiuntur, quid hoc ad nos P 


Note 35. 415 





inquiunt. Ipsi viderint. Ita nos dicimus de infantibus nobis esse 
satis, quod Kcclesiz offerantur vel a parentibus vel ab illis in 
quorum sunt potestate. Quod si cwm actione sacramenti electio et 
preedestinatio concurrat, ratuni est quod agimus ; sin minus irritum. 
Salus enim nostra pendet ab electione ac misericordia Dei. De ea 
vero, cum nobis occulta sit, nihil judicamus.” Ibid. in ¢. iv. v. 1], 
p. 125. 


Note 35, p. 341. 


Bucer.—“ Nec enim possunt perire quee oves Christi sunt, et 
habent vitam zeternam, peccareque et errare perseveranter et fina- 
liter non potest quicunque vere credit in Christo, eoque est in eo 
regenitus.” Script. Ang. p. 787. 

“ Baptismate enim homines debent peccatis ablui, regigni et 
innovarl in vitam eternam : que omnia non nisi sanctorum et ad 
vitam ceternam electorum.” Ibid. p. 38. _ 

“Ex illo, Nunquam novi vos, id est, inter meos agnovi, clare 
docemur qui aliquando a Christo possunt excidere, eos Christi 
nunquam fuisse, eoque nunquam vere credidisse, aut fuisse pilos, 
nunquam Spiritum filiorum fuisse nactos.” Enarr. in Matt. ¢. 7, 
p. 203. 

‘Si jam ad Hcclesiam pertinent et ipsorum est regnum coelorum, 
cur eis signum baptismi negaremus? Si qui heedi inter eos sunt, 
tum excludendi nobis erunt, cum id esse sese prodiderint... 
Quid si etiam fidem non habeant, Spiritu Dei nihilominus ad 
salutem signati? Adest itaque electis infantibus Spiritus Domini.” 
In Matt. 19, pp. 403, 404. 

« Aperte docet omnia a Divina Electione pendere, eosque, quibus 
semel datum fuerit oves esse, perire nunquam posse.” In Joan. 
per Z26: 

“Hx his itaque facile cognoscitur omnem ecclesiam veram Dei 
constare tantum renatis, habere tamen plerumque inter se in com- 
munione externa sacrorum non renatos .. . Hine itaque planum 
est vera Hecclesie membra esse tantum renatos ... Ex his jam 
omnibus locis clare perspicimus baptisma commendari nobis, ut 
instrumentum divinz misericordiz quo Deus non sua sed nostra 
causa dignatur uti, ut quo electis swis, guibus ipse hee sua desti- 
navit dona, conferat regenerationem, &c. Nec minus efficax est 
horum omnium donorum Dei instrumentum baptisma electis Dev 


416 Note 36. 


quos eo statuit sibi regignere, quam est ullum remedium ad con- 
ferendam sanitatem corpori.” In Ep. ad Eph. pp. 558, 560, 598. 

‘‘Ecclesia est corpus Christi, i.e. congregatio hominum, qu 
non aliter regitur Christi Spiritu et verbo quam totum corpus a 
capite regatur. Et hoc modo electorwm et renatorwm tantum est.” 
Ibid. p. 36. 

“Nec enim servat baptisma adultos nisi credentes. Salus 
quidem baptismate offertur omnibus; recipiunt autem illam adulti 
non nisi per fidem, infantes per arcanam Spiritus Sancti opera- 
tionem, gua ad vitam eternam sanctificantur.”’ Ibid. p. 146. 


Note 36, p. 361. 


Mr. Gorham’s language on this head expressed no more than 
the obsignatory view of baptism, which pervades the theology of 
the Reformation. 

« Putant vi et efficacia operis baptismi peccatum remitti, neque 
agnoscunt Sacramentis potius remissionem obsignari, quam adulti 
assequuntur credendo, et parvuli fidelium qui ad electionem perti- 
nent, per Spiritum Sanctum et gratiam jam habent ... Sed 
querere facile posset quispiam, Si Christianorum pueri, qui ad 
electionem pertinent, ut dixisti, anteguam baptizentur pertinent ad 
fedus Dei et Spiritum Sanctum habent . . . profecto videtur 
superfluere baptismus. Cui tinguntur? Quid illis accedit? Aut 
quid confertur illis quod prius non habuerint? Priusquam re- 
spondeam vicissim ego ex te queram: Sit Ethnicus etatis adulte, 
qui audita predicatione Evangelica convertatur ad Christum, 
vere credat: porro sua fide jam justificatus, baptismum desiderat, 
sed nondum habet: is cum jam votum obtinuerit, quzeso te, cur 
est baptizandus? Quid confert ei Sacramentum . . . Verum licet 
ostenderim argumentum non magis contra nos quam contra nostros 
adversarios facere, attamen ad ipsum dissolvendum hee addam: 
Praeeceptum Domini est adimplendum. Is jussit ut baptizemur, 
idemque circumcisionem imperavit. Unde si quis ista contemneret, 
gravissime peccaret. Huc accedit dona gue jam habentur, et pro- 
missio que jam ad illos pertinet qui Christi sunt, consignanda est 
externo symbolo.” Peter Martyr, Loc. Com. p. 584. 

‘“‘ Howbeit in plain speech it is not the receiving of the sacra- 
ment that worketh our joining with God. For whosoever is not 
joined to God before he receive the sacraments, he eateth and 


Note 36. A417 





drinketh his own judgment. The sacraments be seals and wit- 
nesses, and not properly causes of this conjunction .. . We confess 
that Christ by the Sacrament of Regeneration, as Chrysostom 
saith, hath made us flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, that 
we are the members and He is the Head... This marvellous 
conjunction and incorporation is first begun and wrought by faith ; 
afterward the same incorporation is assured to us and increased 
in our baptism.” Jewell, Reply to Mr. Harding’s Answer, P. 8. 
Ed. pp. 182, 140. 

“M. Non ergo remissionem peccatorum externa aque lavatione 
aut aspersione consequimur. A. Minime: nam solus Christus 
sanguine suo animarum nostrarum maculas luit atque eluit.. . 
Hujus vero peccatorum nostrorum expiationis obsignationem atque 
pignus in Sacramento habemus.” Nowell’s Catechism. 

Bullinger’s “ Decads” received in 1586 the imprimatur of the 
English Episcopate ; the Upper House of Convocation issuing in 
that year an order that the junior ministers should provide them- 
selves with a Bible and Bullinger’s Decads in Latin or English, 
and read one chapter in the Bible every day, and one sermon in 
the Decads every week. 

“The holy and elect people of God are not then first of all 
partakers of the first grace of God, and heavenly gifts, when they 
receive the sacraments. For they enjoy the things before they be 
partakers of the signs.” Bullinger’s Decads, Lond. Ed. Leer. 
p- 1006. 

“We believe that God of His mere grace and mercy, in the 
Blood of Jesus Christ, hath cleansed and adopted them, and ap- 
pointed them to be heirs of eternal life. We therefore baptizing 
infants for these causes do abundantly testify that there is not 
first given unto them in baptism, but that there is sealed and con- 
firmed unto them, what they had before.” P. 1007. 

“They, therefore, which before by grace invisibly are received of 
God into the society of God, those selfsame are visibly now by 
baptism admitted into the selfsame household of God by the 
minister of God.” P. 1018. 

“ Sacraments, therefore, do visibly graff us into the fellowship 
of Christ and His saints, who were invisibly grafted by His grace 
before we were partakers of the sacraments.” P. 1021. 

“ We are not first grafted into the body of Christ by partaking 
of the sacraments: but we which were before ingrafted by grace 
invisibly are now also visibly consecrated.” P. 1023. 

“The holy Scripture teacheth that we are washed clean from 

Ee 


418 Note 37. 


our sins by baptism. For baptism is a sign, a testimony, and a 
sealing of our cleansing. For God verily hath promised sanctifica- 
tion to His Church, and He for His truth’s sake purifieth His 
Church from all sins by His grace, through the blood of His Son, 
and regenerateth and cleanseth it by His Spirit, which cleansing 
is sealed in us by baptism.” P. 1060. 

“ Whereupon of some it is called the first sign or entrance into 
Christianity. Not that before we did not belong to the Church. 
For whosoever is of Christ, partaking the promises of God and of 
His eternal covenant, belongeth unto the Church. Baptism, there- 
fore, isa visible sign and testimony of our ingrafting into the body 
of Christ.” P. 1061. 


Note 37, p. 362. 


Of the numerous Protests, which appeared against the Gorham 
judgment at the time, the principal one, in consideration of the 
theological names attached to it, adopted the ground “that the 
renission of original sin to all infants in and by the grace of 
baptism, is an essential part of the Article ‘One baptism for the 
remission of sins;’” but, though a Protest of some length, being 
extended through nine clauses, did not throughout mention the 
term “ Regenerate.” The Protest is occupied, then, with a diffe- 
rent term from that with which the judgment is; which is a defect, 
because in regard to its subject-matter a Protest cannot keep too 
closely to the terms of the judgment against which it is a Protest. 
But moreover the term of the Protest differs essentially in mean- 
ing from the term of the judgment ; because “ remission of original 
sin” is only a part of regeneration, whereas the judgment spoke 
of “regeneration.” The term of the judgment then covered a 
larger area of meaning than the term of the Protest; which is to 
say that the Protest was upon a different subject-matter from that 
of the judgment. If it be said that the remission of original sin 
implies the accompaniment of the other part of regeneration with- 
out expressing it, one part of the whole going with the other; it 
still remains that the expressed subject-matter of the Protest is 
different from the expressed subject-matter of the judgment. 

And it is important to observe that that part of the contents of 
regeneration which the term in the Protest does not cover, is just 
that part which gave rise to the question at issue, viz. whether all 
infants were or were not regenerate in baptism. This other part 
is one of two alternatives, actual goodness or the power of attain- 


Note 38. 419 


ing actual goodness and salvation, according as regeneration is 
defined. But either alternative is, upon the ground of experience 
or the special ground of the Predestinarian respectively, an obstacle 
to a regeneration coextensive with infant baptism. 


Norte 38, p. 350. 


In examining Hooker’s baptismal language we observe first of 
all that it is expressly sacramental, so far that he makes the sacra- 
ment of baptism an ordained channel and instrument of grace. 
But I need not repeat here the caution which I have more than 
once given, that among divines a general assertion of the grace 
of baptism does not commit the asserter to any decision as to the 
conditions upon which such grace is actually received. This gene- 
ral form leaves the question open, so that a Calvinist or the opposite 
could alike make it, each reserving to himself the right to fill up 
the omission in his own way. 

We observe, secondly, that Hooker admits infants as well as 
adults to a present participation of the grace of baptism. The 
solemn and judicial statements in which this decision is expressed 
are known to all. These again, however, are only general state- 
ments to the effect that the grace of baptism is open to “ infants.” 
We obtain the measure of this general language admitting infants 
as a class, not only from common usage in speaking and writing, 
but also specially from the usage of the theological writers of 
Hooker’s own day. For we find this general language that “ in- 
fants” are regenerate in baptism, in the writings of avowed Cal- 
vinists, who did not hesitate to use it, because they never supposed 
that by saying that ‘‘we” are regenerated in baptism, or that 
“men” are, or that “infants ” are, they committed themselves to 
the regeneration either of all infants or all adults in baptism. 
“We deny,” says Calvin, “that infants cannot be regenerated by 
the power of God.”® “What,” he asks, “is there to prevent me 
from saying that infants receive that grace now in part which 
they will enjoy in fulness hereafter ?”? “In infants,” says Peter 
Martyr, “the Holy Ghost supplies the room of faith, and the 
effusion of the Holy Ghost is promised in baptism.”’ “ Bellar- 
mine saith that hidden grace is imparted to infants when they are 


€ TInstit. iv. 16. 18. 7 Ibid. 19. 8 Loc. Com. chap. 4, c. 8, § 2. 
Ee2 


420 Note 38. 


baptized: we say so too;” is Whitaker’s statement.® ‘“ When in- 
JSants are baptized,” says Junius, *‘ God doth both offer and confer 
all the good things of the covenant.”? “ The infants of the faith- 
ful,” says Zanchius, “‘ receive the regenerating Spirit in baptism.”? 
Burgess denies that “ infants do not ordinarily receive the Spirit 
in baptism.”? The plural “infants ” is used by these divines who 
are avowed Calvinists, not of course in the sense of all infants, 
but as a limited plural, implying certainly that the grace of bap- 
tism spoken of is open to infants as a class, but by no means 
committing the writers to the position that all infants are regene- 
rate in baptism, which indeed they expressly denied. When 
Hooker, therefore, says that “infants have that grace given them,” 
&c., and that “infants are in the first degree of their ghostly 
motion,” 4 &c., the phrase by no means of itself implies that he 
considers that all infants have that grace, or that all infants are 
in the first degree of ghostly motion, &. These are general 
statements, which leave it undecided whether all or only some of 
this class are actually partakers of this grace, whether the plural 
“infants ” is used as a universal term, or only as a limited plural 
in the way in which the Calvinists of his own day used it. 

The phrase, however, which is in itself open to either of these 
interpretations, receives in matter of fact from another portion 
and department of Hooker’s own language, the latter of the two. 
“ God hath predestinated certain men, not all men; the cause mov- 
ing Him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us; to 
Him the number of His elect is definitely known.”* And this pre- 


9 Prelect. de Sacr. p. 286. 1 Burgess, p. 176. 

2 In Eph. p. 222. 

3 Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, p. 80. 

4 Kecl. Pol. v. 64. 2. ; 

5 The following is Hooker’s summary of the doctrine of predestina- 
tion :— 

“1. God hath predestinated certain men, not all men. 2. The cause 
moving Him hereunto was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all. 
3. To Him the number of His elect is definitely known. 4. It cannot be 
but their sins must condemn them to whom the purpose of His saving 
mercy does not extend. 5. To God’s foreknown elect final continuance 
in grace is given. 6. Inward grace whereby to be saved is deservedly 
not given unto all men. 7. No man cometh unto Christ, whom God by 
the inward grace of His Spirit draweth not. 8. It is not in every, no 
not in any man’s mere ability, freedom, and power to be saved, no man’s - 
salvation being possible without grace. Howbeit God is no favourer of 
sloth, and therefore there can be no such absolute decree touching man’s 
salvation as on our part includeth no necessity of care and travail, but 


Note 38. | 421 





destination is the original cause or agent in the process of the new 
birth, without which that process does not take place in any human 
soul. But the original agent does not work without subordinate 
means, or an instrument, whichis baptism. ‘“ Eternal election not- 
withstanding includeth a subordination of means, without which 
we are not actually brought to enjoy what God secretly did intend ; 
predestination bringeth not to life without the grace of external 
vocation wherein our baptism is implied;” but with this external 
vocation and baptism it does bring to life, and baptism therefore is 
that ‘ which both declareth us and maketh us Christians ;” it is 
“the door of our actual entrance into God’s House, the first appa- 
rent beginning of life, a seal; perhaps, to the grace of election 
before received, but to our sanctification here, a step that hath not 


any before it.” 

It is evident that in this scheme baptism figures as the instru- 
ment of predestination, the subordinate means without which that 
original cause of spiritual life in the human soul does not produce 
that life; that therefore its effect as such a subordinate means 
must depend upon the original cause or agent whose instrument it 
is, being present with it to use it for the end designed; that the 


shall certainly take effect whether we ourselves do wake or sleep.” 
Keble’s Ed. vol. ii. 752. Preface, p. c. 

In this summary then we observe a certain caution and reserve in 
stating the Calvinistic ground, and a stopping short of some harsh por- 
tions of Calvinistic language. At the same time the kernel of Calvinism 
is here—‘‘God hath predestinated certain men, not all men, and the 
cause moving Him was not the foresight of any virtue in us at all.” If 
a divine decree antecedent to all action or desert of the individual is the 
necessary condition of salvation, those who are not included in it are ex- 
cluded from the possibility of salvation. Some persons are antecedently 
to all works of their own certain to be saved, and others are as certain 
not to be. It does not signify by what name we call this latter state of 
exclusion ; whether we call it reprobation or preterition the result is the 
same. The substance of Calvinism is thus here, while to none of the 
cautions accompanying it will the Calvinist object. He will allow with 
Hooker, that those to whom the decree of predestination does not extend, 
*‘ will be condemned by their own sins,” such continuance in sin being 
the consequence of this exclusion ; that the non-bestowal of saving grace 
is “deserved,” by reason of original sin; that God’s absolute decree 
does not preclude the “necessity of care and travail on our part.”” What- 
ever then Hooker’s caution may imply, whether the unconscious conflict 
of a mild disposition with doctrinal logic, or that jealousy of any excess 
beyond necessary truth which thoughtful and learned men acquire, or 
even a latent intellectual suspicion of the Calvinistic ground as being 
open to a balance from other truth, it does not in effect prevent him from 
stating the substance of Calvinism. 


422 Note 38. 


grace of baptism, therefore, assumes election as the condition upon 
which it is received by the individual. Baptism is part of the 
‘‘external vocation,” but the external vocation is of no force with- 
out the antecedent election whose instrument it is. 

The point in dispute between Hooker and Cartwright is, not 
whether election is not a necessary condition of the new birth, 
which is assumed on both sides, but whether the individual being 
elect has the new birth before baptism; Cartwright maintaining 
that he has, Hooker maintaining that he has not, but that baptism 
confers the first inward grace; a grace which, though it presup- 
poses election [of which itis perhaps the seal], presupposes nothing 
else, but is ‘‘ to our sanctification here a step that hath not any 
before it.” 

It follows upon the grace of Baptism being thus dependent upon 
election, that that grace when received is indefectible, because the 
elect necessarily persevere to the end, and to them, as Hooker says, 
“ final continuance in grace is given.” Accordingly, the next thing 
we observe in Hooker’s language is that he does make justifying 
or regenerating grace indefectible. ‘The justified man,” he says, 
“being aliveto God in Jesus Christ our Lord, doth as necessarily 
from that time forward always live, as Christ, by whom he hath 
life, liveth always.” ® Again: “ Ifthe justified err, as he may, and 
never come to understand his error, God doth save him through 
general repentance : if he fall into heresy, He calleth him either at 
one time or another by actual repentance; but from infidelity, 
which is an inward direct denial of the foundation, preserveth him 
by special providence for ever.”? Again: “There was in Habak- 
kuk that which St. John doth call ‘the seed of God,’ meaning 
thereby the first grace which God poureth into the hearts of them 
that are incorporated into Christ; which having received, if, be- 
cause it is an adversary to sin, we do therefore think we sin not, 
we do but deceive ourselves. Yet they which are of God do notsin 
in anything any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace, because 
the seed of God abideth in them, and doth shield them from receiv- 
ing any irremediable wound.” ® Again: “The first thing of His 
so infused into our hearts in this life is the Spirit of Christ; 
whereupon the rest of what kind soever do all both necessarily de- 
pend andinfallibly also ensue, therefore the Apostles term it some- 
times the seed of God.”® Again: “The man which is born of God 


6 Works, vol. iii. p. 643. ? Thid. p. 647. 
§ Thid. p. 559. 9 Kecl. Pol. v. 56. 11. | 


Note 38. 423 


hatha promise that in him the seed of God shall abide; which seed 
1s a sure preservative against the sins of the third suit,” which are 
‘infidelity, extreme despair, and obduration in sin.” ! 

We have plainly laid down in these statements the doctrine of the 
indefectibility of justifying or regenerating grace ; for regeneration 
confessedly goes along with justification. But holding this doc- 
trine, in what sense did Hooker accept the statement in the Bap- 
tismal Service over every infant, that it “is regenerate”? He 
could not accept it as a doctrinal statement, but only in that sense 
which was the current and received sense of that day, and in which 
his own theological friends held it, viz. the hypothetical. 

To the general principle of charitable presumption, we know 
from the passage beginning, “ We speak of infants as the rule of 
piety alloweth,” &c., that Hooker had no objection. The particular 
case, indeed, in which Hooker there defends the rule of presumption 
is not the assertion in the service of the infant’s regeneration, for 
no objection was made to this assertion in Hooker’s day, nor did 
it enter into the material of controversy between the defenders of 
the Prayer Book and the Puritans. The case in which he defends 
the rule of presumption is that of the sponsor saying, in the name 
of the infant, “I believe,” which was the assertion of the infant’s 
belief; which Cartwright objects to because faith implies election ; 
and therefore ‘ it can no more be precisely said that he hath faith, 
than it may be said precisely that he is elected ;”” but which Hooker 
justifies on the ground that it is sometimes lawful to state a thing 
positively, even when we do not know that it is true, but can only 
presume it to be so: ‘We speak of infants as the rule of piety 
alloweth,” &c. But though it was another part of the Baptismal 
Service which extracted this defence of positive statements having 
an hypothetical meaning, the defence applies generally to the rule 
of presumption in Church services. 

But Hooker’s baptismal statements are quoted as contradicting 
his Calvinistic ones. This contradiction then, were it made out, 
would only issue in neutralizing Hooker on the question before us, 
not in making him an authority on one side; but it does not 
appear to me to be made out. Hooker’s baptismal statements speak 
undoubtedly of the grace of the Sacraments, and of “infants” as 
admitted to that grace : they do not assert, however, that all infants 
receive that grace, but are consistent with the Calvinistic limita- 
tion. ‘ Baptism is a sacrament which God hath instituted in His 


- } Vol. iii. p. 646. 


A424 Note 38. 





Church, to the end that they which receive the same might thereby 
be incorporated into Christ, and so through His most precious 
merit obtain as well that saving grace of imputation which taketh 
away all former guiltiness, as also that mfused Divine virtue of 
the Holy Ghost which giveth to the powers of the soul their first 
disposition toward future newness of life.” (EH. P. v. 60. 2.) 
Hooker only says here that “ God hath instituted baptism ”’ to 
the end that they which receive the same might thereby, &c., which 
is another thing from saying that a// who receive the same are 
thereby, &c. It is language which leaves the conditions of the 
benefit open. Quoters of Hooker assume that the “ first disposition 
toward future newness of life” is a certain implanted faculty, 
universally implanted in baptized infants; but a faculty common 
to all is not the ordinary meaning of the term “ disposition ;”? and 
if we interpret Hooker by Hooker, it is not Hooker’s meaning. For 
why should not this “first disposition toward future newness of 
life” be the same with “the first grace” just now referred to, 
“which God poureth into the hearts of them which are incor- 
porated into Christ,” which persons “having received do not sin 
any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace” P Why should it not 
be the same with “ the first thing infused into our hearts, whereupon 
the rest of what kind soever doth infallibly ensue :” the same with 
* the seed of God, which abideth in us and doth shield us from receiv- 
ing any irremediable wound ;” “ the seed of God, which is a sure pre- 
servative ” ? Why should it not be the same with the “ seed of faith ” 
of Calvin, the “root of faith” of Peter Martyr, the “seed of the 
habit of faith” of Whitaker, the “ habitual principle of grace” of 
Davenant, and the “ initial regeneration ” of Burgess ; who, we may 
remark, expressly affixes this Calvinistic sense to this expression 
of Hooker’s? “The life spiritual is peculiar to God’s elect. Mr. 
Hooker delivers as much, for having said that infants ‘ receive the 
Divine virtue of the Holy Ghost in baptism, which giveth to the 
powers of their souls their first disposition towards future newness 
of life,’ he afterwards adds, ‘Predestination bringeth not to life 


2 Hooker adopts the Scholastic idea of sacramental grace, as being an 
actual habit or virtue, not assisting grace simply. ‘‘ By grace we always 
understand, as the word of God teacheth, first, His favour and undeserved 
mercy toward us: secondly, the bestowing His holy Spirit which in- 
wardly worketh: thirdly, the effects of that Spirit whatsoever, but espe- 
cially saving virtues, such as faith, charity, and hope: lastly, the free 
and full remission of all our sins. This isthe grace which the sacraments 
yield, and whereby we are all justified.” App. to Book v. Ecel. Pol., 
wol.ai, —p: YOO; 


Note 38. 425 


without the grace of external vocation wherein our baptism is im- 
plied.’”$ The authority of Hooker was always appealed to by 
those Calvinistic writers in our Church who held most strictly the 
principle of sacramental grace, regulated by predestinarian con- 
ditions. 

Again: “There is delivered unto them (infants) that sacrament, 
a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to 
the articles of faith, because the habit of faith, which doth after- 
wards come with years, is but a further building up of the same 
edifice, the first foundation whereof was laid by the Sacrament of 
Baptism. For that, which there we professed without any under- 
standing, when we afterwards come to acknowledge, do we any- 
thing else but only bring into ripeness the very seed that was sown 
before? We are then believers, because we then begin to be that 
which process of time doth make perfect.” 4 

The plurals “ we” and “they,” as has been already shown, are 
not necessarily universals. A Calvinistic divine then could make 
this statement without any difficulty, as asserting the implantation 
of a seminal habit of faith in infants at baptism, which afterwards 
came out in act as they grew up: the principle of election deter- 
mining in what infants this took place. Burgess’s whole treatise 
upon the “ Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants” is indeed but 
an amplification of this statement, regeneration being a process 
which is there asserted to have its beginning in baptism, and to 
involve the seed of future faith and holiness; though this took 
place only in elect infants. 

Again: * In sum the whole Church isa multitude of believers, all 
honoured with that title, even hypocrites for their profession’s sake, 
as well as saints because of their inward sincere persuasion, and 
infants as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion toward 
the actual habit of faith: the first sort are faithful in the eye of 
the world, the second faithful in the sight of God; the last in the 
ready direct way to become both, if all things after be suitable to 
these their present beginnings.” ® 

Here again, if we interpret Hooker by Hooker, why should not 
the first degree of the ghostly motion toward the actual habit of 
faith ” be the same with “ the first grace,” which persons “ having 
received do not sin any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace ” ? 
the same with “the first thing infused into our hearts, whereupon 
the rest of what kind soever do infallibiy ensue”? the same with 


3 Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, p. 60. 
4 Eccl. Pol. v. 64. 2. 5 Ibid. 


426 Note 38. 


“the seed of God which abideth,” and ‘ the seed of God which is 
a sure preservative”? The qualification at the conclusion, “ If all 
things after be suitable to their present beginnings,” is more than 
significant, making as it does the future issue, 1. e. the final perse- 
verance of the infants, the test of their having entered upon “ the 
ready direct way,” “ the first stage of ghostly motion toward the 
actual habit of faith.”’ 

Again: “ When we know how Christ in general hath said that 
of such is the kingdom of heaven, which kingdom is the inheritance 
of God’s elect, and do withal behold how His providence hath 
called them unto the first beginnings of eternal life, and presented 
them at the well-spring of new birth wherein original sin is purged ; 
besides which sin there is no hindrance of their salvation known 
to us, as themselves will grant; hard were it that, having so many 
fair inducements whereupon to ground, we should not be thought to 
utter at the least a truth as probable and allowable in terming ~ 
any such particular infant an elect babe, as in presuming the like 
of others, whose safety nevertheless we are not absolutely able to 
warrant.’ 6 

Hooker appeals here to the fact of a “‘ call” of ‘‘ Providence ” to 
the “beginnings of eternal life,” and to the fact of a “ presentation 
at the well-spring of new birth,” as a legitimate ground for the 
charitable presumption of something more, viz. election and pre- 
destination to eternal glory. A “ call’? however of “ Providence” 
is allowed in the Calvinistic scheme to those who never have the 
“inward” or effectual call. ‘“ Pauci ergo electi sunt ex magno 
vocatorum numero; non tamen ea vocatione unde fidelibus dicimus 
eestimandam suam electionem.” Calvin, Inst. ii. 24.8. Anda 
call to ‘‘ beginnings” is openly allowed in the Calvinistic scheme 
to those who do not receive the grace enabling them to persevere to 
the end ;—a distinction which Hooker himself made. ‘‘ We must 
note there is an election the grace whereof includeth their temporary 
benefit that are chosen, and there is an election that includeth their 
eternal good. By temporary I do not mean any secular or worldly 
blessing... but I mean such spiritual favours as, albeit they 
tend to everlasting felicity, yet are not themselves everlastingly 
continued, neither are inwardly infused, but outwardly bestowed 
graces... This may suffice touching the outward grace, whereby 
God inviteth the whole world to receive wisdom, and hath opened 
the gates of His visible Church unto all, thereby testifying His 


6 Eccl. Pol. v. 64. 3. 


Note 38. 427 


will and purpose to have all saved, if the let were not in themselves.7 
... The inward means whereby His will is to bring men to eternal 
life, is that grace of the Holy Spirit which hath been spoken of 
. . . From whom this inward grace is either withheld altogether or 
withdrawn, such being left to themselves wax hard and obdurate 
in sin.” Appendix to B. v. vol. ii. pp. 740, 742. 

A call of Providence, then, and a call to “ beginnings,” are con- 
sistent with the Calvinistic scheme; and the “ presentation ” at the 
well-spring of new birth is a visible fact which is also consistent 
with that scheme. The baptismal statement before us is con- 
structed with evident caution, balance, and adjustment; but the 
advantage which is common to all infants in baptism, in however 
favourable a light put, is still represented with a reserve, and is 
consistent with the Calvinistic limitation of the inward grace to 
some only of the number. 

The estimate I have given of Hooker’s Calvinistie statements is 
the same as Mr. Keble’s, who admits that Hooker’s doctrine of the 
indefectibility of grace is inconsistent with the doctrine of the re- 
generation of all infants in baptism. ‘“ For how could or can any 
person beholding what numbers fall away after baptism, hold con- 
sistently,” § &c.? But the estimate of Hooker’s baptismal state- 
ments is different. Mr. Keble assumes that when Hooker “ attri- 
butes justifying or pardoning, together with the first infusion of 
sanctifying grace to baptism,’ such a mode of speaking implies 
that “he attributes it to baptism when not unworthily received, 
and therefore in all cases to mfant baptism.” ® But this is an 
assumption for which the language itself gives no warrant. For, 
as has been already explained, a writerin maintaining that a grace 
attaches to baptism as a sacrament, does not commit himself to a 
decision upon another and a further question regarding the recipients 
of such grace; as e.g. that all infants are such recipients. Such 
is not the force of this language, according to the ordinary rules 
of language; but moreover the force and meaning of this general 
kind of statement is known from the language of theological 
writers of the day. The most decided Calvinistic divines of that 
day both asserted generally the grace of the sacrament, and also 
that “infants” received that grace; but these were general forms 


7 «* Asserimus nullos perire immerentes . . . impietate, nequitia, in- 
gratitudine meriti sunt homines.’ Calvin, Instit. iii. 24. 12. ‘Non 
alieno, sed suo ipsorum vitio [originali peccato] sunt obstricti.” Ibid. 
ii. 1. 8. 

8 Preface, p. cii. 9 Tbid. 


433° Note 38. 


of statement which were adopted by those writers because they 
expressed as much as was wanted, and no more,—expressed the 
doctrine of the grace of baptism, and also the doctrine that it was 
given to infants; but did not imply that it was given to all in- 
fants, which would have been contrary to their whole theology. 
Hooker’s baptismal language is of this type, and does not, when 
we examine it, commit the writer to any position respecting the 
conditions of baptismal grace which would be contrary to Cal- 
vinistic doctrine. 

Regarded simply as the interpretation of an author, there is this 
advantage in the above estimate of Hooker’s baptismal statements, 
that it makes Hooker consistent with himself. Mr. Keble’s esti- 
mate of those statements obliges him to regard Hooker as con- 
tradicting himself, for he says that “these representations cannot 
be reconciled with Calvin’s doctrine of the absolute perpetuity of 
justifying and of the first sanctifying grace,” which he admits to 
be held and stated by Hooker. The cautious and considerate 
stamp of Hooker’s theology is against the supposition of self- 
contradiction in Hooker, and the two sets of statements, when 
compared together, do not appear to me to require it. 

It was the characteristic of one School of Calvinistic divines, 
that they discarded the common Reformation plan of modelling 
infant upon adult baptism. According to the common Reforma- 
tion plan the condition of previous faith was required for the in- 
fant; prevenient grace was necessary to implant this faith; and 
by virtue of this grace he was said to be regenerate before receiving 
the seal of baptism. This School, on the other hand, introduced 
the infant, without any medium of preparation, straight from 
nature to the baptismal grace; and Hooker appears to belong to 
this School. He vindicates the priority of baptismal grace, that 
“it is to our sanctification here a step that hath not any before it ;” 
he will have no regeneration before baptism. But regeneration in 
baptism, though it presupposes no previous inward grace, still pre- 
supposes election in Hooker; and that it takes place in all infants 
is inconsistent with his Calvinistic statements. 

Mr. Keble classes the Sermons of Hooker, in which most of the 
statements of the doctrine of indefectibility occur, as his “ earlier 
productions ;” but if the date which the editor assigns to these 
Sermons is the true one, they preceded immediately the commence- 
ment of the “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” to which Mr. Keble gives the 
date of “the summer of 1586.” Nor indeed does the style or 
matter of these Sermons at all correspond to the presumption 


Note 38. 429 


which the phrase “earlier productions” is calculated to raise. 
They are not the crude compositions of a young preacher, express- 
ing the mere results of a Calvinistic education unchecked by his 
own reflection, and taking for granted the dominant theological 
ground of the day. They are mature compositions, indicating a 
full consciousness of the claim which the Church, as well as his own 
particular audience, had to well-weighed statements from a preacher 
of the Temple; and the author has already long thought for him- 
self, and is in fact already taking an independent line, and adopt- 
ing an attitude of resistance to the dominant religious temper of 
the day, on the point of the indiscriminating violence against the 
Church of Rome, which he endeavours to check. We see in the 
Sermons in short the same balance and self-reliance, the same kind 
of tempered conclusions, and the same general controversial ground, 
which appear in the Ecclesiastical Polity. We must not therefore 
interpose too wide a mental interval between the Sermons, and the 
latter great work ;—more especially as the “ Ecclesiastical Polity ” 
appeals as undoubtingly to the doctrine of the indefectibility of 
grace as the Sermons do. 

No candid eritic will of course deny a difference in temper between 
the Calvinism of Hooker and the popular one of the day. He was 
too thoughtful to like extreme statements as such, as unthinking 
people do, or to be carried away by the current of an age. He 
therefore states the Calvinistic ground with studied moderation, and 
with a thoughtful gentleness of doctrinal logic stops short of some 
harsh portions of Calvinistic language. Nor is he, in the “ Eccle- 
siastical Polity,” by any means profuse of Calvinistic language, 
rather reserving it for special occasions, when it 1s necessary in 
the argument that he should retire back upon it;’ when, either 
because he must make an admission to an opponent, or for some 
other reason, the fitting time has come for him to bring forward 
and unveil the basis of his system, instead of tacitly assuming it. 
Still, what we have to consider in estimating the ground of a writer, 
is not how often he says, but what he says; which being ascertained, 
itis sufficient if the rest of his language is consistent with, and not 
contradictory to, the main assertion. Calvinism was the system 
to which Hooker substantially attached himself; he was brought 
up in it; his religious circle was a Calvinistic one, and the principal 
patron of his mature life and authorship was Archbishop Whitgift, 
to whom, after the promulgation of the Lambeth Articles, he 
dedicated the fifth book of the Ecclesiastical Polity. It was 
natural that a mind of solid but gentle and slow strength, reveren- 


430 : Note 38. 





‘tial, cautious, and affectionate, should cling with some pertinacity 
to the opinions which early education, long religious friendships, 
and existing Church authority fostered. There is no evidence, 
therefore, that he ever adopted another basis of doctrine. He may 
betray in his language tendencies to another system, but in defect 
of such tendencies (whether from strength of early convictions, or 
deference to religious friends, or a strong perception of the true 
element in Calvinism, or whatever reason) coming to a head, he is 
still to be considered as never having given up the Calvinistic 
scheme of the operation of the sacraments. 


THE END. 


SSP t eee 
a : a 


[come 


PRINTED BY GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LIMITED, ST. JOHN’S SQUARE, LONDON. 





3 
a 

i Bs 
a 





: 
a a % 
= we 
P = 
Sed *. se 
5 vw ay 
‘ 
a, 
ys é 
He ‘ > 
* 
= Ame 
% tS 


‘ 
y SS 
. sy 

. g 
ie 
7 eth 

La | 

. 





nan” ae SS 
Pt Bee 


phe F re dey < 
iy) Soe a 
¢ Pies pets 








1 1012 01042 4754 


